Does M4/3 or DSLR produce higher quality photo's

Started Apr 13, 2013 | Discussions thread
Mahmoud Mousef
Senior MemberPosts: 2,353
Like?
OMD viewfinder better than optical for low light?
In reply to digifan, Apr 16, 2013

digifan wrote:

Mahmoud Mousef wrote:

raptureall wrote:

I've done a lot of research concerning Micro 4/3.  I thought of getting the Panasonic GH3, but am not satisfied with the quality of photo against say the new Nikon d7100.  So does a DSLR produce better quality photo's, or have I not seen good photo's from a Micro 4/3?  I really like the Micro 4/3, but my main interest is in the quality of the photo.  Thanks for your help!

Never tried the GH3 or 7100.

But tried various Micro Four Thirds, Four Thirds and Nikon bodies.

Through the years I've always found a Nikon DSLR of similar vintage the better choice for night work and higher ISOs. Simple as that. Plus the optical viewfinder the only way to go for night work.

This is downright wrong. The EVF will be better for night work, there is no light amplification with an OVF as can be with EVF. My experience is that with an EVF you can still compose the shot better than with OVF because your eyes will be the limiting factor with an OVF, and the OMD can even focus in very dim/dark conditions.

I don't own the OMD; unless they have made some miraculous electronic viewfinder BETTER than all current models I've tried, I can't say whether you are right or wrong. But I'll tell you what happens in the various cameras I've tried:

1) in low light the viewfinder lags.

2) in very low light, the viewfinder gets noisy

3) in very low light the low light levels get lost in a sea of black; it's unable to resolve any info from very low light situations. All I see is black. Under the EXACT same conditions, my Nikons with optical viewfinder (and my E-520) both show me all the fine details, enough to actually focus manually and get the shot.

4) electronic viewfinders I've tried amplify terribly. Taking a shot of the moon at night with an electronic viewfinder, for example, amplifies the moon so much that it looks like a sun with no surface detail. Adjusting exposure only helps a little in making out detail, and what detail there is, there is much less of. With an optical viewfinder, the details is all there, there is no need to fiddle and the shot is obtained SO MUCH easier; focus is extremely easy to get and no "sun-like glowing ball syndrome". Amplifying low-light scenes indoors also results in a lot of unwanted noise and loss of detail.

What I would like to know is if you actually use both optical and EVF, because your experiences are totally different to mine.

I have tried the Nikon D50 and Nikon D5100, Panasonic DMC-G2, Panasonic DMC-G3, Panasonic DMC-GX1, Olympus (Four Thirds) E-520, etc.

The Micro Four Thirds bodies I've tried are often "good enough" for many tasks, but not if near-darkness / higher ISOs / shadow detail / less noise in near-darkness is your main priority.

Then you certainly haven't tried the latest Olympus and Panasonic camera's. (OM-D/E-PL5/GH3)

No I have not, which is why I specifically stated what I have tried and I always use Nikon for low light and high ISO in comparison to the Four Thirds and Micro Four Thirds models I mentioned. The results are clearly superior if this is the main priority.

But I haven't tried the 7100 and/or GH3, but I'd be surprised if Nikon doesn't have the edge.

The 7100 doesn't have an edge afaiac. The D600 does but for very different reasons.

Have you used these cameras extensively? Do you or have you owned them?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow