Reading mode: Light Dark

E-M1 heavy crop compared to same scene with FZ200

Go to last post
F

Florida Nature Photographer

Veteran Member
Messages
8,876
Solutions
1
Reaction score
1,152
Location
Tampa Bay, US
I took my new E-M1 and my beloved FZ200 out in the field to try to determine the benefit of the truckload of cash I dumped recently.

I set them side by side on two tripods and set up similar shots.

The E-M1 had the 1.4 teleconverter and the 50-200 which by my calculations is 560mm.

The FZ200 I zoomed all the way out to 600mm.

I cropped the shots to as close as possible to the same frame. These are straight out of camera except that I let Lightroom auto white balance the FZ200 shot to get rid of the blue tinge. A blue tinge that I never noticed was there before.

E-M1 wide view
E-M1 wide view

6ca8af3ee7f04743beff9f9ed938eda2.jpg



E-M1 heavy crop
E-M1 heavy crop



FZ200 heavy crop - auto white balance in Lightroom
FZ200 heavy crop - auto white balance in Lightroom

--
Florida
 

Attachments

  • b74d887c6140403da8d7dcec4828de88.jpg
    b74d887c6140403da8d7dcec4828de88.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 0
  • 45ec2cd364b346e09d49fb208c66351a.jpg
    45ec2cd364b346e09d49fb208c66351a.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Big difference in both noise and resolution even at low ISO. Try it at higher ISOs and you will see an even bigger difference. If you shoot in low light it's a huge difference.

****
 
Digital **** said:
Digital **** wrote:

Big difference in both noise and resolution even at low ISO. Try it at higher ISOs and you will see an even bigger difference. If you shoot in low light it's a huge difference.
Click to expand...
That was the photo trip that doomed my wallet. I went out one morning to take some pre-dawn night shots with my FZ200. Long exposures on a tripod at ISO 100 because I knew that the FZ200 does poorly at higher ISO. When I imported the results into to Lightroom and looked at the results (noise)... Quite literally, that same morning, I started researching m43 and dslr cameras.
 
Hi

In good light the Panasonic is very good though I think. Yes when the going gets tough the small sensor lets it down though. I am looking forwards to the new breed of large sensor compacts that are supposedly round the corner. Olympus or Panasonic, either one will be fine. I do not see myself selling my MFT gear for one, but a nice always with me compact would not go amiss.
 
Florida Nature Photographer said:
Florida Nature Photographer wrote:

I took my new E-M1 and my beloved FZ200 out in the field to try to determine the benefit of the truckload of cash I dumped recently.

I set them side by side on two tripods and set up similar shots.

The E-M1 had the 1.4 teleconverter and the 50-200 which by my calculations is 560mm.

The FZ200 I zoomed all the way out to 600mm.

I cropped the shots to as close as possible to the same frame. These are straight out of camera except that I let Lightroom auto white balance the FZ200 shot to get rid of the blue tinge. A blue tinge that I never noticed was there before.

E-M1 wide view
E-M1 wide view

6ca8af3ee7f04743beff9f9ed938eda2.jpg

E-M1 heavy crop
E-M1 heavy crop

FZ200 heavy crop - auto white balance in Lightroom
FZ200 heavy crop - auto white balance in Lightroom

--
Florida
Click to expand...


I honestly think that's absolute best case scenario for a 1/2.3 inch sensor (with a 24x zoom no less) vs an mFT sensor, both near the same 35mm eq. focal length. Sure, the mFT is sharper and crisper, but it's to be expected.



Another comparison I'd be interested in seeing is a side by side between the two at a true focal length of 108mm for both (i.e. the FZ200 at max zoom and the 50-200 at a little more than half-way on the E-M1). Then crop the E-M1 to the same coverage as the FZ200 shot.



That way, you can see if having a lens of the same true focal length on a smaller sensor gives a major advantage (or not). Somehow, I'm guessing it will.
 
Em-1 far better. :D
 
ASR45 said:
ASR45 wrote:

Em-1 far better. :D

--
Alan.
It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
Mark Twain
Click to expand...
280mm vs 108mm on the same distant subject.

Which one would you expect to be better? :)
 
Recently bought the FZ200 as a walkabout, but sold it on very quickly, was always comparing to similar shots taken with the E-M5, but an excellent cam for a beginner or someone who doesn't want the hassle of changing lenses.
 
klythawk said:
klythawk wrote:

Recently bought the FZ200 as a walkabout, but sold it on very quickly, was always comparing to similar shots taken with the E-M5, but an excellent cam for a beginner or someone who doesn't want the hassle of changing lenses.
Click to expand...
I have also been looking at the FZ200. I ran across this series of videos on YT by Graham Houghton:
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPfe6kkX-LqgAovxwxHQXdQ

I have watched these and learned his techniques. His photos look very good. I would appreciate your opinion of his videos -- and if they might have changed your mind on returning your FZ200. Thanks. Methinks you may have done too much pixel-peeping?

--
Thom--
 
Last edited:
Thomas Karlmann said:
Thomas Karlmann wrote:
Thomas Karlmann said:
klythawk wrote:

Recently bought the FZ200 as a walkabout, but sold it on very quickly, was always comparing to similar shots taken with the E-M5, but an excellent cam for a beginner or someone who doesn't want the hassle of changing lenses.
Click to expand...
I have also been looking at the FZ200. I ran across this series of videos on YT by Graham Houghton:
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPfe6kkX-LqgAovxwxHQXdQ

I have watched these and learned his techniques. His photos look very good. I would appreciate your opinion of his videos -- and if they might have changed your mind on returning your FZ200. Thanks. Methinks you may have done too much pixel-peeping?
Click to expand...
 
The image quality from the 50-200 is lovely, even with the TC. I can see why it gets such rave reviews.
 
Florida Nature Photographer said:
Florida Nature Photographer wrote:

I took my new E-M1 and my beloved FZ200 out in the field to try to determine the benefit of the truckload of cash I dumped recently.

I set them side by side on two tripods and set up similar shots.

The E-M1 had the 1.4 teleconverter and the 50-200 which by my calculations is 560mm.

The FZ200 I zoomed all the way out to 600mm.

I cropped the shots to as close as possible to the same frame. These are straight out of camera except that I let Lightroom auto white balance the FZ200 shot to get rid of the blue tinge. A blue tinge that I never noticed was there before.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]
I'm rubbing my chin and wondering whether the difference is really significant in the real world. The tint on the Panasonic can be fine tuned in the camera settings to your taste and the difference in sharpness just has to be taken in the context of the amount of cropping done and whether a print would be done at that magnification.

Clearly the FZ200 is at a disadvantage in low light even despite its constant-aperture lens. The big difference is in price though. Just the lens for the E-M1, that does it justice, will probably cost twice what the whole FZ200 cost. The reason I'm still rubbing my chin is that I have my doubts whether the difference in image quality in anything but very poor light is worth changing one for the other :-|

If it came to having one of each, I wouldn't hesitate. Indeed, putting my money where my mouth is and my cards on the table, that's what I've got in a way, with a NikonP500 bridge, a Panny G6-M4/3 and a Sony, the Sony with a selection of lenses including a nice bright prime for those dark places.
 
Last edited:
I still have (and use) my Panasonic FZ50. AFAIC they've never really updated it, just spun off lotsa variations...none of which match it handling-wise (manual zoom ring). The Oly 1.4x screw-on tele lens works great with this camera too! (The Pany 1.7x screw-on is rubbish.)

-Dave-
 
good example but why not show a comparison of a picture that you really like rather than just something that you have picked to show the comparison. I would always prefer to see comparson of things that you normally shot. Of course if boats in boat houses is your thing then I apologise.
 
David Kieltyka said:
David Kieltyka wrote:

I still have (and use) my Panasonic FZ50. AFAIC they've never really updated it, just spun off lotsa variations...none of which match it handling-wise (manual zoom ring). The Oly 1.4x screw-on tele lens works great with this camera too! (The Pany 1.7x screw-on is rubbish.)

-Dave-
Click to expand...
The part that I'm intrigued with is the constant f2.8 lens in the FZ200. Also I like the Distance scale (in the VF) so I can do Hyperfocal distance photography -- that capability has been gone ever since AF began -- until now.

--
Thom--
 
Last edited:
DonSC said:
DonSC wrote:

....even with the TC.
Click to expand...
Now, there's an extremely important point, I'd say. The OP is making an apples-to-bananas comparison even less equal by using the TC. If anyone disagrees with this, please feel free, although I would politely request that you back up your argument with facts and logic that I and others might learn something. I should also add that I'm not trying to be contentious. It's very possible I've missed something in my thought process that others haven't.
 
RealPancho said:
RealPancho wrote:
RealPancho said:
DonSC wrote:

....even with the TC.
Click to expand...
Now, there's an extremely important point, I'd say. The OP is making an apples-to-bananas comparison even less equal by using the TC. If anyone disagrees with this, please feel free, although I would politely request that you back up your argument with facts and logic that I and others might learn something. I should also add that I'm not trying to be contentious. It's very possible I've missed something in my thought process that others haven't.
Click to expand...
My purpose was to compare my old camera system at full zoom to my new camera system at full zoom. I wanted to see if the image quality improvement justifies the expense and additional bulk/weight of the quite large 50-200. Not to mention the inconvenience and potential for missed shots involved in switching lenses.

There have been some posts in this thread from folks who seem to think it is not.

--
Florida
 
Last edited:
Florida Nature Photographer said:
Florida Nature Photographer wrote:
Florida Nature Photographer said:
RealPancho wrote:
Florida Nature Photographer said:
DonSC wrote:

....even with the TC.
Click to expand...
Now, there's an extremely important point, I'd say. The OP is making an apples-to-bananas comparison even less equal by using the TC. If anyone disagrees with this, please feel free, although I would politely request that you back up your argument with facts and logic that I and others might learn something. I should also add that I'm not trying to be contentious. It's very possible I've missed something in my thought process that others haven't.
Click to expand...
My purpose was to compare my old camera system at full zoom to my new camera system at full zoom. I wanted to see if the image quality improvement justifies the expense and additional bulk/weight of the quite large 50-200. Not to mention the inconvenience and potential for missed shots involved in switching lenses.

There have been some posts in this thread from folks who seem to think it is not.
Click to expand...
 
LTZ470 said:
LTZ470 wrote:

The wide shots is where you really need the EM1, for great landscapes...
Click to expand...
Now this is new information! My justification for this purchase was primary in interest in Night Photography and shooting at Twilight, etc. Why is the E-M1 better for landscapes? I thought daylight shots was where the FZ200 performed it's best.
LTZ470 said:
I do take it and use it as it works well, but I think you will be catching a lot of fall foliage and a 12mm lens on the EM1 will do well...
Click to expand...
Can you elaborate on why the wide end of the 12-50 will be good for fall foilage?

--
Florida
 
Last edited:
Florida Nature Photographer said:
Florida Nature Photographer wrote:
Florida Nature Photographer said:
LTZ470 wrote:

The wide shots is where you really need the EM1, for great landscapes...
Click to expand...
Now this is new information! My justification for this purchase was primary in interest in Night Photography and shooting at Twilight, etc. Why is the E-M1 better for landscapes? I thought daylight shots was where the FZ200 performed it's best.
Florida Nature Photographer said:
I do take it and use it as it works well, but I think you will be catching a lot of fall foliage and a 12mm lens on the EM1 will do well...
Click to expand...
Can you elaborate on why the wide end of the 12-50 will be good for fall foilage?

--
Florida
Click to expand...
You need to test them on a landscape side x side, if you are headed for the mountains and fall foilage, I would have the Olympus 12mm f/2 for a Landscape lens, stopped down to f/4 it will give you much much better results then FZ200 but can be used at f/2 if the wind is blowing and you need a fast shutter to freeze leaf movement...

The 14-150 Oly does well also and is a cheaper option? but you have the 12-50 and that will work as well stopped down slightly...

P9240341%20%282%29-1-X3.jpg


P9239642-1-X3.jpg


P9230031-1-X3.jpg


P9239848-1-X3.jpg


--
--Really there is a God...and He loves you..
FlickR Photostream:
www.flickr.com/photos/46756347@N08/
Mr Ichiro Kitao, I support the call to upgrade the FZ50.
I will not only buy one but two no questions asked...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top