Petavoxel recently bemoaned the fact that the majority of sensors in recent micro four thirds EVIL cameras (or MILCs, if you prefer) perform poorly compared to contemporary APS-C sized sensors in digital SLRs. The only exception was the Panasonic GH1, which put up quite a respectable showing compared to its μ4/3 stablemates.
Yesterday dpreview posted their review of the E-PL1, and they were very happy with its high ISO performance. I quote:
Overall, the E-PL1′s images are the most natural and convincing here – avoiding the D3000′s overly contrasty, noisier images … Most impressive is the E-PL1′s ability to produce results comparable with the EOS 500D and Pentax K-x, despite its smaller sensor.
But what does DXO Labs have to say? They disagree, showing that the big three leave the E-PL1 gasping for photons with a lowly 487 points in the low-light ISO stakes.
Hence, the paradox.
How do these two $500-ish cameras weigh up against each other?
How can this be? Is either DXO Labs or dpreview writing nonsense? The keen observer will notice that there are two significant differences in the way these two respected websites measure image quality: Continue reading
