SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Goofy, just go back to sleep, enjoy. :lol:
SS

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Zzzzzzzzzzz.

Peekayoh Loc: UK

Ok, I'm going to be picky!
In what way are you disputing the DxO measurements? DxO are widely respected and their Sensor/Lens tests are pretty much a yardstick of performance.

In any case, you make no sense without stating your criteria. For instance, the GX7 holds up well against the M1 Olympus but looks bad against the Sony A7r but then we're comparing chalk with cheese, figuratively speaking.

I can't believe you said that! If that were true, then you have no need of that Summilux, just compensate.

On the one hand you have IQ which is measurable and composed of attributes like resolution, sharpness, colour depth, noise and so on but on the other hand you have the ambience and the skill of the Photographer in conveying a message or feeling.

There is no compensating one for the other, an unsharp lens or a sensor with low resolution will always be just that. What is true is that the skilled Photographer will use/or not use the various attributes of IQ in delivering the final image.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Read my comments carefully.

As for DXO, yes it is highly respected. What laboratory equipment can resolve and real world presentations vary widely.

Peekayoh Loc: UK

I did read it carefully!

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

ahhh, yes, SS, the legendayr 0.95. can also be used as a saucer for your tea cup!

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Firstly, a good image is rarely made in the camera. It only starts there. You can agree with this or not but it is what it is. Post processing is as much a photographic skill as being able to control the light or the camera.

A poor lens on a poor sensor will never reach the potential of an excellent lens on an excellent sensor unless the skill factor and other conditions are mismatched.

Various combinations can equalize or destroy any advantages of specific elements.

Yes some lenses are excellent. My Olympus 75mm f/1.8 on the E M1 is as good as it gets. It also makes my GX7 shine. The E M1 will not out do the GX7 when my poorest lens is on it and my best lens is on the GX7.

There are so many other conditions that are not taken into
account when DXO or other review sites publish their findings. Its mostly out of the box vanilla results.

Peekayoh Loc: UK

@joer:
What on earth are you talking about?
Are you still disputing DxO stats or have you changed your mind?
What criteria did you use to say that DxO doesn't rate the GX7?
In what way does light or technique compensate for a poor lens/sensor?

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Some day the light will come on... or maybe not.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

My previous response is not fair. Sorry about that.

1. I have no way to dispute the numbers nor would I want to. I'm just saying that they should be taken with a grain of salt. The numbers are generated in Raw with everything turned off. Not indicative what the camera is capable of.

2. I have a GX7 and an E M1. Even though they are rated widely different I don't see much difference in my use of them.

3. Light is what makes the photo. Even poor lenses have sweet spots where they are competitive with expensive lenses.

4. Using the camera to its best advantage and post processing makes all the difference in the photograph. I can easily make up for a lens that is less sharp than another.

You can dispute this if you like but it is what it is, at least to me.

Peekayoh Loc: UK

No Problem.

Well, the numbers are pretty well indisputable and it's quite wrong to take them "with a grain of salt". The DxO numbers give a very clear indication of Sensor performance which will be reflected in performance whether in Raw or, as you put it, "everything turned off"; but then you are talking "post processing" which is a whole other can of worms.

In what way are they rated widely different? The two cameras are rated overall at 70 and 73 which is quite close with the newer Olympus Sensor having the slght edge but as you so rightly say, the difference will be marginal in use.

Forgetting the remark about light for the moment and looking rather at the lens comment, it is true that a lens will have an aperture whereof it delivers it's best performance; in Landscape photography and using a tripod which allows full access to any aperture you like, the best performance possible can be extracted from the lens. It becomes a different kettle of fish if that aperture can't be used at the time the image is taken and that will be the majority of the time, I suspect. Regardless, a top quality lens will always deliver a better performance than these "poor" lenses you describe. If that were not the case there would be little point, as I said before, in stumping up for that Summilux you desire.

Who would disagree with this? It is indisputable that a skilled Photographer and PP expert will always produce a superior end result to that of the masses. I'm sure that most visitors here aspire to such lofty heights and I am no exception.

No you can't and neither can I! If you were to take the same image, one with your "poor" lens and one with a "quality" lens and then process both with your superior PP skills, there would be an obvious difference.

You are totally mixing up what is achievable with good equipment and what is achievable with superior Photography/PP skills. It is quite possible for a skilled Photographer to take a good image with poor equipment but not the reverse. The best equipment makes for even better images given the right skill set.

There is also the question of what equipment lies within your budget and what is "good enough" for a particular user. I don't want to give the impression that I'm disparaging of consumer level glass, I have used plenty of it in the past and it was "good enough" for me at the time.

Dun1 Loc: Atlanta, GA

Good luck I know you can't wait until ya get it in your hands and on your camera