More cameras

Brand


















 

Tests and reviews for the camera Olympus OM-D E-M5

Measurements and specifications

Olympus OM-D E-M5
To compare this camera:   

DxOMark Sensor Scores

[?]
Overall Score[?]
71
Portrait
(Color Depth)[?]
22.8 bits
Landscape
(Dynamic Range)[?]
12.3 Evs
Sports
(Low-Light ISO)[?]
826 ISO

View how the Olympus OM-D E-M5 camera rates at the DxOMark Score

Type Hybrid 
Announced 2012-02-08 
Indicative price (USD) 999  
Sensor type CMOS 
Resolution 4640 x 3472  
Sensor photo detectors (Mpix) 16.11  
Sensor size (mm) 13.0 x 17.3 
Color filter array RGB 
Pixel pitch (µm) 3.73  
Bits per pixel 12.0 
Focal length multiplier 2.00 
Aspect Ratio 4:3 
ISO latitude  200 - 25600 
Shutter type Mechanical 
Fastest - Slowest speed (s) 1/4000 - 30.0  
Frame rate (fps) 9.0  
Live view  Yes 
Stabilization  Yes 
Firmware  
Dust cleaningYes 
Mount typeMicro 4/3  
Weight (gr) 425  
Battery type Lithium-Ion BLN-1 
Battery weight (gr)  
Tropicalization Yes 
Camera material magnesium alloy 
Mount material  
View finder type Electronic 
View finder magnification 0.92 
View finder coverage 100 
Mirror lockup  
View finder diopter  
Monitor type OLED 
Monitor size 3 
Monitor pixel 610000 
Articulated screen Yes 
Touch screen Yes 
Contrast screen  
Low-pass filter  
Focus mode Yes 
Autofocus modes FAST AF, Tracking 3D, AF Tracking 
Number of autofocus points 35 
Exposure bracketing 2, 3, 5, 7 frames at 1/3 EV, 1/2 EV, 2/3 EV, 1 EV steps 
Exposure compensation +/-3 EV (at 1/3 EV, 1/2 EV, 1 EV steps) 
Drive modes Single Continuous Self-timer 
Buffer size  
Recording medium SD/SDHC/SDXC 
Image format JPEG/RAW/DCF/DPOF/MPO 
White balance bracketing Yes 
Connectivity USB 2.0 (480 Mbit/sec) (Mini HDMI type-D) 
Bluetooth  
3G  
Sound recording stereo 
External micro  
Histogram  
GPS  
Video Yes 
Maximum format image video  
Full HD Yes 
Live autofocus  
Video file format AVI/MOV 
Video codec MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 
Video stabilisation  

Certain fields may be left blank. They will be updated as soon as possible.
Color response
Sensitivity metamerism index
ISO 17321 		79
 
White balance scales R raw 2.06
G raw 1
B raw 1.94
 
    R sRGB G sRGB B sRGB
Color matrix as defined in ISO standard 17321 R raw 2.03 -0.95 -0.09
G raw -0.23 1.65 -0.42
B raw 0.13 -0.68 1.55

Full Color Sensitivity: Noise covariance ellipses in CIE 1931 Lab color space
Select ISO : 200
(ISO are manufacturer ISO)
 
Select luminance : 30








Currently no lens has been tested mounted on this camera

Further readings for the Olympus OM-D E-M5

To provide photographers with a broader perspective about mobiles, lenses and cameras, here are links to articles, reviews, and analyses of photographic equipment produced by DxOMark, renown websites, magazines or blogs.

Camera Review  |  November 20, 2012
Olympus PEN E-PM2 review: Entry-level hybrid gets top-of-the-line sensor

Introduced in mid September, the Olympus PEN E-PM2 is the second generation of Olympus’ entry-level Micro Four Thirds hybrid camera. It sports a newly updated design with a useful, fixed grip and a touch-screen interface among other updates, but the big news is that it has inherited the sensor of the much-admired Olympus OM-D E-M5, the current top-of-the-line Micro Four Thirds camera.
Camera Review  |  February 14
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3 review

Hybrid is a word used both positively and negatively, quite appropriate for the photographic industry. The Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3 wears this badge: "Hybrid", a mix of system and compact. It has a range of lenses spanning 7mm to 300mm (equivalent to 14mm up to 600mm in full frame 35mm) and a body that is not much bigger than a compact camera. Should it wear it with pride? Yes, it should…
Lens Review  |  January 29
Olympus 15mm 1:8.0 body cap: A tiny prime for Micro Four Thirds

Announced in September 2012 the Olympus 15mm 1:8.0 body cap lens is a pancake prime lens for the Micro Four Thirds lens mount. Costing just $49 and featuring an equivalent 30mm wide-angle focal length, fixed f/8 aperture and manual focus it’s a cheap and quirky alternative. Its tiny proportions also make an intriguing option for photographers looking to work discreetly, travel light and be ready to shoot at a moments notice.  
Article  |  January 11
DxOMark Camera Sensor

A noise benchmark of 187 digital cameras by Peter van den Hamer

DxOMark Camera Sensor is a raw benchmark for camera bodies by DxO Labs. The benchmark is “raw” because it measures image quality using Raw output files. It is also raw as DxO’s data can be used to cook up camera reviews that cover more aspects than image quality.
Camera Review  |  January 04
Canon EOS M review: Canon finally joins the mirrorless party

Canon was the last major maker to embrace the hybrid or ‘mirrorless’ camera market. As a somewhat sober debut, designed for those who are new to photography, the EOS M adopts an 18-megapixel APS-C format in a compact body but boasts a number of advanced features including a 31-point hybrid AF system for stills and video and a touch sensitive 3-inch LCD. While it’s clear this camera doesn’t compete directly with the firm’s DSLRs, how does it stack up against the competition that don’t have the same volume of DSLR sales to protect?
Camera Review  |  November 28, 2012
Sony NEX-6 review – The logical CSC choice?

Announced in September 2012, the Sony NEX-6 creates a new range in the Sony line-up. It sits between the flagship Sony NEX-7 and the mid-range Sony NEX-5R offering features and performance benefits to beginner and advanced photographers alike. Providing a simplified user-interface than the NEX-7, the NEX-6 is none-the-less fully featured with a high-resolution OLED viewfinder, Full HD video recording and a tilt-adjustable screen for ease of use.
Camera Review  |  February 27
Samsung NX20 review - A great performance among stiff competition

The Samsung NX20 is a good ‘Hybrid’ APS-C camera, it is a pretty good APS-C camera, and actually it’s not a bad camera by any standards! Unfortunately for the Samsung it is surrounded by other good cameras and needs something special to make it not just a good camera but a successful camera.
Camera Review  |  November 15, 2012
Olympus Pen E-PL5: Qualities of the OM-D E-M5

With the Pen E-PL5, Olympus updates its range of micro 4:3 compact hybrids with redesigned ergonomics, upgraded electronics, and especially with the integration of the same 16Mpix LiveMos sensor found in the OM-D E-M5. Will it show the same advances in image quality as the flagship camera of its line? Our tests provide the answer.
Camera Review  |  November 08, 2012
Sony NEX 5-R: A new Sony NEX-5N?

Announced at IFA 2012, Sony’s NEX-5R  is the third version of its very popular NEX-5 camera. This new model features a 16-megapixel APS-C EXMOR sensor composed of photosites that provide autofocusing by phase detection. Has Sony improved the image quality of its latest mid-range compact hybrid? Our tests reveal the answer.
Camera Review  |  October 29, 2012
Nikon 1 J2 – All Quiet on the Eastern Front

The Nikon 1 J2 retains many of the same characteristics of its older brother, the J1, including its 1", 10-Mpix CMOS sensor. Other than its new 3", 921,000-point screen, the new version of Nikon’s compact hybrid puts particular emphasis on creative modes. How does the Nikon 1 J2’s sensor perform with respect to its predecessor, to its direct competitors, and to expert-level hybrids and compacts? Some answers from DxOMark.
Camera Review  |  October 25, 2012
Nikon 1 V2

In the Nikon 1 line of digital compacts with interchangeable lenses, the V2 brings some nice new features: shooting at 60 i/s, Full HD video recording in 60p, different modes for slow motion, and … a new 1-inch, 14.2-megapixel, 6400 ISO CMOS sensor that we can hardly wait to test! But while we wait for its appearance on the market, here’s all the skinny on the Nikon 1 V2.
Camera Review  |  October 04, 2012
Panasonic Lumix DMC G5: New features and a new sensor

Panasonic is adding its ninth model to its growing Lumix G-series lineup. In July, the Japanese electronics giant announced the Lumix DMC G5 would replace the Lumix DMC G3. Like its predecessor, the G5 taps the increasingly popular mirrorless Micro Four Thirds technology that Panasonic co-developed back in 2008 with its cross-town Tokyo rival Olympus.
Camera Review  |  September 25, 2012
Olympus OM-D E-M5: The best of the micro 4:3 cameras

Olympus caused a sensation when it revived the legendary OM line that had enjoyed its heyday in the silver halide era. The Olympus OM-D E-M5 successfully revisits the OM design in terms of its ergonomics and workmanship. Olympus has quite precisely taken advantage of this new family in its line of compact hybrid micro 4:3 cameras to introduce a new 16 Mpix Live MOS sensor. What is this new sensor all about? Does it represent an improvement over current Pen sensors? Does it help the micro 4:3 category to catch up with the APS-C hybrids (with the Sony NEX in the lead)? Our sensor review provides the answers.
Camera Review  |  March 30, 2012
Pentax K-01

The Pentax K01, Pentax’s first serious hybrid, turns in a great performance, arriving in second place in its category. All of the results are available here: Pentax K-01.
Lens Review  |  March 28, 2012
Micro Four Thirds logo

Designed with compactness in mind, micro 4/3 lenses go for the smallest size possible most of the time. But to achieve these dimensions, they sometimes have to compromise on image quality. In this review, we cover a wide range of standard lenses, both prime and zoom, and show that not all lenses are equal in terms of the trade-off between compactness and image quality.
Camera Review  |  February 09, 2012
DxOMark Olympus OM-D

After its great success over the past several years in refurbishing its PEN line, Olympus is continuing its quest for innovation by updating other legendary cameras of the past.
Preview  |  February 08, 2012
Olympus OM-D E-M5

Today Olympus is reviving its legendary range of OM SLRs with the launch of the Olympus OM-D E-M5, a vintage-design micro 4/3.

Comments
Added by TeacherGuy |  April 07

MAJOR PROBLEMS with OM-D-E-M5!!

<div id="linkdxomark">This a comment for <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Database/Olympus/OM-D-E-M5">this page on the website</a></div>I experienced several major problems with my new OM-D-E-M5 yesterday, and I need some explanation and help.

#1 Issue--horrible chromatic aberration/fringing--green, blue, and purple fringing along the edge of some mountain peaks at Pinnacles National Monument.  Used the Lumix 20mm/1.7 aspherical lens.  Unacceptable fringing -- I could never submit my shots to a contest, sell them to a client, or even blow them up to hang in my living room!

#2 Issue--strange black images!  On the first shot of the day, the image turned out completely black (looked blue in the LCD).  The second image was 90% black, but you could see the subject in the top-left of the image.  The third image was fine.  The exposure setting was exactly the same for all three shots (ISO 200, 1/4000 sec., f 4.0).  This black image, then OK image pattern repeated itself 2-3 more times during the day.  Oh, yeah.  The lens used was the Zuiko 12mm/f2.0.

#3 Issue--exposure mistakes?  I took at shot of the mountains just after the sun set.  There was no exposure compensation and the resulting histogram was dead center.  However, the image looked very light on my computer.  I also took several other shots with positive and negative exposure compensation, and I found that the shot that looked best, most like how it really appeared to my eyes at the time I took the shot, was 1/3-2/3 stop underexposed.  So, does the camera have an exposure problem?

Does anyone have an explanation for the above?  If Olympus can't or won't fix the fringing, I'll have to return all the gear I bought and look for a new system.  Aaargh!!

Thanks to anyone who replies--I will appreciate it very much.

TeacherGuy

Reply

Added by steshaster |  October 11, 2012

Why iso isn't iso

And maybe this tells you something about olympus omd iso settings decisions:
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/09/why-iso-isnt-iso.html

Reply

Added by steshaster |  October 11, 2012

Raw is not Raw

Maybe this sheds some light on image quality of omd
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/10/raw-is-not-raw.html

Reply

Added by Tord |  October 06, 2012

A nice camera

My wife has a nice little OM-D, while I myself just got myself a Nikon D600. Both blissfully sharp, under the right circumstances!


Reply  | Read all replies for this comment

First replies for this comment
Added by Hakeem |  October 09, 2012

Re: A nice camera

Must be a very lovely/happy couple :)
Bless you!

Reply
Added by Tegularius |  September 25, 2012

Well, well, well...

DXO has procrastinated for so long, that I wrote them off and decided to buy my own OM-D without waiting for their analysis.

I'm glad I did, because I find it an extraordinary camera. The usability and the image quality is extraordinary. I am not surprised to learn it is the best m43 around. It has an extraordinary dynamic range, almost no-existent noise at ISOs lower than 3200 and a magnificent range of colors (I shoot exclusively in RAW mode).

So I am somewhat dissapointed at the overall results shown by DXO. So much so in fact, that I'm begining to doubt about the credibility of DXO testing. Specially after seeing the results of other tests done -with DXO software- with results completely different to those published here.

It sounds all so darn fishy... they wait and wait and wait, and finally, out of the blue, and when the OM-D no longer has any mediatic impact, they decide to release the results of their testing. By now it is irrelevant, save for historical reasons. It is of no real use to their readers.

The worst part is that these results lack credibility. My own experienced is very  different. I own a Sony A77 as well as the OM-D and I have done my own informal testing and comparison with both. The OM-D is far superior -image quality wise- to the Sony in just aboout every aspect. It is hard for me to believe the A77 can be so far ahead in the ranking of DXO.

Not believable, guys.

Reply  | Read all replies for this comment

First replies for this comment
Added by Hakeem |  September 27, 2012

Re: Well, well, well...

Well reading your experiences and what other sites posted, I strongly beleive DXOMark ows us some explanation on these delays and some details on their testing process! definately

Reply
Added by Tomeryaffe |  September 27, 2012

Re: Well, well, well...

Read the post by seta666, and you will get the answer to your question.
The reason that the picture quality look so good to you at ISO-3200, is because its actually ISO-1489! While on the A77 its ISO-2612

Reply
Added by Hakeem |  September 28, 2012

Re: Well, well, well...

Well I suggest reading R Butlers  article on ISO / ISO Cheating or if it should be consider cheating or is an interesting technological advancement here:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4241806072/sense-and-sensitivity

its much easier to underestand, less confusing, well guided and straight forward IMO. it exaplins the two most common definition of ISOs very well and different camera manufacturer's take on these and personally I am very satisfied with the conclusion that says "all that matters is the final image quality and usability"!

So if you keep calling Oly tht its underexposing at equivalent ISO's, you simply are not getting the point!


Reply
Added by Tomeryaffe |  September 25, 2012

Question for Axel

Hello Axel, thank you for testing this camera.
Can you please answer the comments about the true ISO values of this camera?
My question is general - does the scores in DXO are based on the real ISO sensitivity, or the manufacture stated values?

Reply  | Read all replies for this comment

First replies for this comment
Added by AaronMC |  September 26, 2012

Re: Question for Axel

It is the measured ISO, not the manufacturer's ISO. If you look at the charts, all of them have "measured ISO" as one of the variables, not simply "ISO."

Reply
Added by Spkeasy |  September 24, 2012

Compare DxO and DPReview PICTURE results

Has anyone compared the pictures on dpreview.com under "16. Noise & Noise Reduction" for the OM-D EM-5?
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusem5/16
Compare the OM-D with a Panasonic DMC-G3, Sony NEX-7 and a Samsung NX200. Look at the tests for both JPEG and RAW. This is a little hard to do since NEX-7 only has noise reduction "High Low or Normal" and no apparent OFF. With NR "off" the Samsung is the cleanest up thru 6400, but the image produced by the Samsung is almost invisible at this stage. I guess great ISO is possible but if the picture is hard to see, why bother? Of the 4, the OM-D and NEX-7 are very close at NR=Low setting.
In the ACR Raw noise test (lets face it, RAW is where you see what the sensor can really do, internal processing can only degrade the image SOMEWHERE) the OM-D is far better up to 3200 with ACR NR off, not only are the test swatches smoother, the image is clearer. Again, the Samsung has better swatch but the image is too washed out to be useful.
I think DxO does a real service with their test results and they are useful for comparison before a purchase but primarily, I need to consider the results of the picture as I see it as the final factor.
I bought an OM-D in July and the results have been everything I hoped for. Great shots at incredibly slow speeds (11x14 is beautiful with 1/15 sec hand-held shots of a stream). Very clean shots up to 1600 (what ISO is that really? who knows but in evening light and with no flash I get great shots, that's what counts). Kind of reminds me of when I ditched my Brownie and bought my first Nikon.

Reply  | Read all replies for this comment

First replies for this comment
Added by Hakeem |  September 27, 2012

Re: Compare DxO and DPReview PICTURE results

@Spkeasy Yes I noticed all you said, already. In simple words IMO OMD has better overall results at any ISO from any camera produced APSC or 4/3. That is why I was hoping a good result from DXOMark as they only measure sensor characterstics; and no other factor at all. As DXOMark was always giving pathetic results to Olympus cameras, however their results are ridicolously low. Good that you bought it yourself without waiting for DxoMark. After GH3 tests, maybe I will do the same.

Thanks for sharing your experience!

Reply
Added by seta666 |  September 24, 2012

ISO in Olympus E-M5 is way off

<div id="linkdxomark">This a comment for <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Database/Olympus/OM-D-E-M5">this page on the website</a></div>

For me is incredible the way ISO is off in the E-M5, almost 1EV off

Manufacturer ISO: 200   Measured iso: 107
Manufacturer ISO: 400   Measured iso: 214
Manufacturer ISO: 800   Measured iso: 394
Manufacturer ISO:1600   Measured iso: 782

In isos over 400 it is over 1EV off, worst I have ever seen. That is why iso 1600 looks clean, because it is not even iso 800

Anyway, seems a good 4/3 sensor but I find this iso thing very anoying

If you compare this to the GF3 or GF5 which are very well calibrated it would show very easy
[url=http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/816%7C0/(brand)/Panasonic/(appareil2)/793%7C0/(brand2)/Olympus/(appareil3)/763%7C0/(brand3)/Panasonic]http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/816%7C0/(brand)/Panasonic/(appareil2)/793%7C0/(brand2)/Olympus/(appareil3)/763%7C0/(brand3)/Panasonic[/url]

Same shot in same lighting conditions with same exposure time, same aperture and same iso the E-M5 will always be 1EV underexpossed

For me this lying to the customers; I guess is better to say you have an amaizing iso 1600 than to tell the truth and say it is just iso 800

Reply  | Read all replies for this comment

First replies for this comment
Added by AaronMC |  September 24, 2012

Re: ISO in Olympus E-M5 is way off

I agree. This is lying.

It seems like Olympus would have done this to game tests, but one has to assume that they couldn't be that stupid. Dozens of publications do ISO tests to find out how accurate the measurements actually are, so the deception would have been immediately apparent to anyone who cared to look.

Unfortunately, the alternative is equally bad: Olympus is incompetent. In this hypothesis, Olympus simply has no idea how to design a camera correctly. This seems equally unlikely, since it's obvious that Olympus can, in fact, design cameras.

I guess, regardless of the explanation, this is very bad. But at least even with the numbers corrected, the E-M5 comes out looking good.

Reply
Added by seta666 |  September 24, 2012

Re: ISO in Olympus E-M5 is way off

Quote:

Dozens of publications do ISO tests to find out how accurate the measurements actually are, so the deception would have been immediately apparent to anyone who cared to look.


I only know of DXOMark testing real ISOS

Fixing this is as simple as changing the menu isos to the real ones via firmware, something they will not do for sure.

This practice is good to fool people that follow reviews like those of Dpreview, were no one care about the conditions of the shot.

But in real world people will have to use ISO 3200 in conditions where they would normally would use ISO 1600; maybe they do not complain because ISO 3200 on the E-M5 is as good as iso 1600 in other cameras. It is ISO 1600 indeed!!
 
To be fair most companies (canon, nikon included) lie about real iso but to the date worst example was Fuji X100; the E-M5 has made a new benchmark about what lying is.

This practices are unfair for companies like Leica or Panasonic which have very well calibrated sensors

Javier

Reply
Added by hoodlum |  September 24, 2012

Re: ISO in Olympus E-M5 is way off

As mentioned in another thread DPReview only tests exposure variance with JPEG while DXO tests the exposure variance with RAW.  That is the difference you are seeing here.

Some E-M5 users have already reported that RAW is underexposed by 1EV vs JPEG when shooting RAW+JPEG.  Oly likely does this to help preserve the highlights.  So they likely push the underexposed RAW output of shadows and mid-tones by 1EV, leaving highlights underexposed therefore preserving them in JPEG.  You noticed from Dpreview the E-M5 had very high JPEG DR.

Fuji does something similar with the X series above ISO1000.

Reply
Added by AaronMC |  September 24, 2012

And Now We Know

I'm glad to finally have these results. I hope that you guys don't get swamped with work again and are able to test the GH3 very soon, because I find it to be the more exciting m4/3 camera.

I have to admit, I'm a little disappointed with the color depth and DR numbers. Obviously, I would have never expected ISO numbers to match the APS-C models, but I was hoping for closer readings on the other two variables.

Still, for me, this signifies more than anything else that Olympus has STOPPED MESSING AROUND. They spent three years producing shit, and they have finally given us the m4/3 camera they should have made when they originally produced the E-P1.

I am very, very happy for that.

Reply  | Read all replies for this comment

First replies for this comment
Added by Hakeem |  September 24, 2012

Re: And Now We Know

Yes Aaron, agreeable, I think after seeing D600 results, I believe DXOMark team can produce results on GH3 quick.

Reply
Added by jyhfeei |  September 25, 2012

Re: And Now We Know

Quote:

<div id="linkdxomark">This a comment for <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Database/Olympus/OM-D-E-M5">this page on the website</a></div>

I have to admit, I'm a little disappointed with the color depth and DR numbers. Obviously, I would have never expected ISO numbers to match the APS-C models, but I was hoping for closer readings on the other two variables.



If the ISO speed for the OMD is off by a stop, I think the noise rating from DXO makes sense (relative to other site data).  However, the color depth and DR still seem too low.  Even with the stop difference in ISO, other sites have the OMD sensor neck and neck with the NEX cameras and completely dominating the RX100 sensor.  Yet DXO has the OMD neck and neck with the 1", RX100 sensor.  I don't know if I buy it.

One thing that is not explained in the review are the reasons for the months delay in results.  Previously, there were "anomalies" with the data.  What is special about these results?  The ISO issue should not trip up DXO by their testing methods.  Nothing explained, as usual.

Reply
Added by DXOMARK |  September 25, 2012

Re: And Now We Know

Yeah ...  I agree.

I smell something fishy.

Hope DXOMArk can explain WHY they drag and delay the test result of OMD EM5 and yet able to produce the test result for Nikon D600 within days of her launch ? !

Most likely they will remain silent as their reason will be something not honorable nor of integrity.

??? :-\ :-[


Reply
Added by Hakeem |  September 24, 2012

finally here .. but the result data conflicts

I don't understand why there is such a difference of the  results i am reading here and I can see on DPReview high ISO and dynamic range results.

Over there, it is always seen better than any APSC you select on comparison tool.

Strange!

Reply  | Read all replies for this comment

First replies for this comment
Added by Emacs23 |  September 24, 2012

Re: finally here .. but the result data conflicts

Because DPR "testing" procedures are crap

Reply
Added by AaronMC |  September 24, 2012

Re: finally here .. but the result data conflicts

I think that is because DxOMark's testing is more rigorous, or perhaps different is a better term. They determine their ISO score based on the point that detail, dynamic range, and color depth all stay above a certain value.

So for example, a camera may do very well as regards detail retention, but the camera will still get a score of 600 from DxO if the color depth or DR drop too low.

Reply
Added by DXOMARK |  September 24, 2012

Re: finally here .. but the result data conflicts

No.

I think DXOMark's testing is crap, falsified and bribed ! ! !

I rather trust DEPREVIEW than DXOMARK ! ! !

:o >:(


Reply