Olympus 12-40 easily beats the Canon 17-55 at f/2.8 (but not when stopped down).

Started Nov 3, 2013 | Discussions thread
Serguei Palto Regular Member • Posts: 269
Re: Wrong!!!! Bad comparison...

technic wrote:

Beach Bum wrote:

technic wrote:

Beach Bum wrote:Assuming both the APS-C and MFT have the same pixel count on the sensor, the 12-35 will outresolve it

But assuming the same pixel count is assuming that APS-C will forever lag m43 in sensor technology, and assuming there always is sufficient light (in low light the system with the bigger sensor and brighter lens will have an obvious advantage). That is unrealistic ...

Until recently m43 was behind APS-C in sensor technology; IMHO the more-or-less similar IQ of the latest m43 sensors with the average APS-C sensor is temporary - if only because APS-C is a much bigger market at least for the next few years.

Pixel count has little to nothing to do with sensor efficiency. It's mostly a choice by the manufacturer. There's no reason why MFT sensors couldn't shadow FF sensor for pixel count, if they wanted to. This doesn't mean they would achieve the same low light and ISO capability, only that they'd have the same pixel count. I'm sure that either Panasonic or Sony could devise a 64MP MFT sensor in pretty short order if they wanted.

Actually, I'm not sure why MFT doesn't just introduce a 64MP sensor. Specifically, one that could combine 4 pixels into 1, to create 16MP images. The 4:1 ratio would allow the user to either take 16MP or 64MP images, so they would lose nothing but gain the ability to shoot 64MP images. The only thing that I'm not sure about is if you could do 16MP RAW images with such a sensor.

But I've been craving such a thing for a while now. Not that any current lens could resolve that much detail, but it would be a nice option.

Admit it, technically m43 will ALWAYS be two stops behind FF because of sensor size - FF will ALWAYS have higher resolution and/or better DR and High ISO performance, assuming the same sensor technology. FF could have a 250MP sensor just as easily as your theoretical 64MP m43 sensor. Now maybe that advantage of FF is not relevant for the average shooter, and the weight advantage of m43 is more important. But we were talking about image quality and lens quality ..

More than 20-50MP in the final image is indeed not going to make much sense for the average photographer because of shutter shock, mirror slap, camera shake from the photographer, IS problems, atmospheric distortion, motion blur, AF lag and other inaccuracies etc. etc. But using the sensor a la Nokia 808 Pureview for making a sensor image with lower MP and higher quality (including lens corrections, and in future including corrections for camera shake etc.) is a great idea. Btw, I'm sure many of the newer FF lenses (e.g. many Canon tele primes) will outperform a 64MP sensor in ideal conditions, the problem is that those ideal conditions are rare for normal photography.

I have compared my own Canon 450D APS-C DSLR with 15-85mm lens to a Canon S110 camera which has almost the same focal length range. Both have 12 MP resolution and pretty good lenses, but there is a huge difference in sensor size. In good light both are pretty close, sometimes with the S110 even a tad better thanks to its newer technology. But if you look in the borders/corners of the S110 image where lots of processing is going on to cure vignetting, CA etc. there is a big difference; and I see the same type of problems with larger sensor compacts like Sony RX100. Take an image in low light and the difference between the old 450D and the new S110 is huge, despite the FAR more advanced high ISO processing in the S110. Sensor size is simply the most important factor for image quality.

Your statement that "...technically m43 will ALWAYS be two stops behind FF because of sensor size..." is not valid. At the same technology and equal total number of pixels the "FF" sensor has only ONE STOP advantage. It is because the noise is randomly distributed over the fourier spectrum band of a sensor, while a signal (image) is formed by localized spectral components. Thus the 4 times increased pixel area gives only two times increasing in signal/noise ratio. Otherwise, the image quality achieved with P&S camera with very small sensors (like superzooms) would be impossible.

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