"Equivalence" demonstrated: Canon 5D and Panasonic GX1

Started Apr 27, 2013 | Discussions thread
Lost in Time
Regular MemberPosts: 207
Like?
Re: "Equivalence" and what you really need to know
In reply to Just Having Fun, Apr 28, 2013

Just Having Fun wrote:

What you need to know is that while FF sensors are "2x" larger than Micro Four Thirds, when you look at DxO over all they are NOT 2 stops better.  For some measurements they are, but for most they are not close to that.

That's because the 2-stops advantage assumes sensors with equal numbers of pixels and equal efficiency (per unit area).

What you are seeing in the DXO plots is simply that the OM-D sensor is a very good implementation. Of the FF cameras, Canon are hopelessly outdated (their APS-C image quality is worse than OM-D...) and the Nikon sensor has been designed for a much larger number of pixels overall. Different design trade-offs.

These implementation advantages are seldom static (well, except for Canon...), and while the OM-D sensor looks great today, probably the next generation of FF sensor will undo that advantage. My GF1 and 5DII are similar vintage cameras, yet the advantage of the 5DII over the GF1 is more than two stops...

BTW, the graph that you show (dynamic range) isn't something directly affected by equivalence - it is simply a measure of how much charge (light) each pixel can record and the efficiency of the ADC. The print-normalised noise measures at DXO are a better comparison.

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