N1 or M4/3 comparison

tomhongkong · Mar 9, 2016

Just in case I was introducing something with my tweeking of DXO, I have done a couple more shots with all settings at the DXO default. (Also tried a different GX8 shot in case the first one was off a bit) This time I have left global sharpening at 0.00, and unsharp mask 100 as it came out of the box for both images.

Do you have different comments now?

V2

GX8

thanks

Tom

André BARELIER · Mar 9, 2016

tomhongkong said:
Just in case I was introducing something with my tweeking of DXO, I have done a couple more shots with all settings at the DXO default. (Also tried a different GX8 shot in case the first one was off a bit) This time I have left global sharpening at 0.00, and unsharp mask 100 as it came out of the box for both images.

Do you have different comments now?

Yes. The GX8 looks much better now, artifacts are gone. I still like the V2 a tad better, but that's really spliting hairs.

I don't use unsharp mask in DxO. I just use the lens sharpness correction, with global 0, details and bokeh 50.

tomhongkong said:
V2

Tom

--
André

http://a.barelier.free.fr/

Richard Murdey · Mar 9, 2016

First: cool pix bro. In terms of tools, a 80-270 equivalent telezoom and a rubber boat seems to have been the right choice.

On the face of it, both N1 and mFT systems should have been largely equivalent, since such bright sunlight essentially levels the sensor playing field.

Then I opened up the GX8 shots and look at 100%. The jaw hits floor. Wretched. Just terrible. Noise artifacts and ham-fisted smoothing all over the place.

Stunned, first thing I do is check the GX8 gallery at dpreview. At 100%, to be honest, it does look pretty rough, even at ISO200 there is blotchiness and lots of noise... at higher iso it's basically a sick joke.

All I can say is "eep!"

(Panasonic and me have a bit of history, goes back to the LC-1, FX-8, and FZ-1. The LC-1 was a beautiful camera with a beautiful lens ... married to a terrible sensor and clunky-as-gravel UI. Looks like the old "venus engine" blotch-machine is still up and running, sadly.)

tomhongkong · Mar 9, 2016

Thanks for comment.

As you will see from another post I have probably given up on my M4/3 experiment, but I will confirm in a week or two

tom

Bev81 from France · Mar 9, 2016

I made the same kind of comparisons 2 years ago. I already had the V1 (+ 2 kits) and tried the E-M5 (+ 12-50) for 1 day (Olympus does offer here 1 day trial of some of their cams)

For me the Oly was indeed superior (by a small margin though) in several areas;

- the 12-50 was much better than our 10-30

- the Oly IBIS was a bit more effective than Nikon VR

- the Oly had better focus in low light

- and better DR

- and not to forget that Oly is providing as much options / configurations as possible, whereas Nikon is always giving something (timelapse for exemple) and taking something else (where is the bracketting ???)

But the price was steep (and still is now for the Mk II) while I got the V1 at crash price a little bit earlier. So I thought the price difference was hard to swallow even if the Oly was better (marginally IQ wise)

Here are some photos I kept from this day, hope they can help (though not in sailing action !)

Bev81 from France · Mar 9, 2016

DPR is slow / erratic when uploading my images so I post several replies to avoid to much hassle when the upload fails...

Bev81 from France · Mar 9, 2016

If I remember well I tried to normalize WB and sharpness. But you still get remants of Oly / Nikon signatures

André BARELIER · Mar 9, 2016

Bev81 from France said:
If I remember well I tried to normalize WB and sharpness. But you still get remants of Oly / Nikon signatures

Thanks for posting these.

Surprising. The Oly pictures are only marginally better at high iso, although they were shot with a very high quality lens. I find the 10-30 did very well.

The more I see Vx pictures from this thread, the more I'm convinced to stay with my V1, and wait to see if a V4/5 and fast lenses come along.

Tord S Eriksson · Mar 9, 2016

myotisone said:
tomhongkong said:

I really am not at all certain that it is worth while jumping to M4/3!

tom

Click to expand...

I think you need to do some comparisons at higher ISOs and less ideal conditions, before making the decision. (interesting that no one on the M43 forum has commented on image quality)

I went through a similar exercise with combinations of V1/V3 70-300cx and kit lens vs the Panasonic G6/GX7 the 14-32 power zoom (slightly better than the kit lens) and the 100-300 with the third party tripod collar fitted to improve stability.

I didn't find it easy to draw any concrete conclusions, but for wildlife photography, I have rarely used the Panasonic GX7 since my tests were done.

I tend to jump from the Nikon 1 straight to my D600, when I am looking for better quality BUT in good bright conditions with base ISO (like your tests) even the D600 images aren't obviously better at normal magnifications.

Cheers,

A FX doesn't always produce better images, but if there is a need for huge dynamic range, my bet is always on the D600! For me the D600 is natural for tripod shots, while handheld I normally use the V2, or the V1.

myotisone · Mar 9, 2016

Tord S Eriksson said:
A FX doesn't always produce better images, but if there is a need for huge dynamic range, my bet is always on the D600! For me the D600 is natural for tripod shots, while handheld I normally use the V2, or the V1.

--

I tend to do the same, handheld is normally split between Fuji and Nikon 1, and normally the D600 when I am using a tripod.

As I said, in good conditions I don't see much difference between the D600 or N1, or indeed the Fuji.

But I like the flexibility to match the camera to the situation.

What never fails to amaze me is just how good the N1 is.

Cheers,

Graham

Jorginho · Mar 11, 2016

Is not a good one and especially not on the GX8. It is the lens that really suffers from shuttershock. So it does say something about this combination and it also does say something about Panasonic needing to address this issue once and for all because it is an issue and it is where Oly and the most others like Nikon too hve no problem or addressed it via EFCS. Panasonic uses a 12 bit electronic shutter but with things moving it is not ideal either....

rhlpetrus · Mar 11, 2016

Richard Murdey said:
First: cool pix bro. In terms of tools, a 80-270 equivalent telezoom and a rubber boat seems to have been the right choice.

On the face of it, both N1 and mFT systems should have been largely equivalent, since such bright sunlight essentially levels the sensor playing field.

Then I opened up the GX8 shots and look at 100%. The jaw hits floor. Wretched. Just terrible. Noise artifacts and ham-fisted smoothing all over the place.

Stunned, first thing I do is check the GX8 gallery at dpreview. At 100%, to be honest, it does look pretty rough, even at ISO200 there is blotchiness and lots of noise... at higher iso it's basically a sick joke.

All I can say is "eep!"

(Panasonic and me have a bit of history, goes back to the LC-1, FX-8, and FZ-1. The LC-1 was a beautiful camera with a beautiful lens ... married to a terrible sensor and clunky-as-gravel UI. Looks like the old "venus engine" blotch-machine is still up and running, sadly.)

I don't know about these, but in my exp the slightly cropped files from Leica 109 are better than from my V1, which is about same sensor-wise as V2. The 109 uses a m43 sensor slightly cropped, making it a 2.2 crop, against 2.7 for N1.

--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/
Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)

rhlpetrus · Mar 11, 2016

andrbar said:
Bev81 from France said:

If I remember well I tried to normalize WB and sharpness. But you still get remants of Oly / Nikon signatures

Click to expand...

Thanks for posting these.

Surprising. The Oly pictures are only marginally better at high iso, although they were shot with a very high quality lens. I find the 10-30 did very well.

The more I see Vx pictures from this thread, the more I'm convinced to stay with my V1, and wait to see if a V4/5 and fast lenses come along.

--
André
http://a.barelier.free.fr/

But the last image set is at ISO 450 for V1 and ISO 1600 for the Oly, how did you compare them? The m43 sensors are now competing with the better APS-C.

--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/
Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)

Bev81 from France · Mar 11, 2016

rhlpetrus said:
andrbar said:

Bev81 from France said:

If I remember well I tried to normalize WB and sharpness. But you still get remants of Oly / Nikon signatures

Click to expand...

Thanks for posting these.

Surprising. The Oly pictures are only marginally better at high iso, although they were shot with a very high quality lens. I find the 10-30 did very well.

The more I see Vx pictures from this thread, the more I'm convinced to stay with my V1, and wait to see if a V4/5 and fast lenses come along.

Click to expand...

André BARELIER · Mar 11, 2016

rhlpetrus said:
andrbar said:

Bev81 from France said:

If I remember well I tried to normalize WB and sharpness. But you still get remants of Oly / Nikon signatures

Click to expand...

Thanks for posting these.

Surprising. The Oly pictures are only marginally better at high iso, although they were shot with a very high quality lens. I find the 10-30 did very well.

The more I see Vx pictures from this thread, the more I'm convinced to stay with my V1, and wait to see if a V4/5 and fast lenses come along.

Click to expand...

Jorginho · Mar 12, 2016

andrbar said:
Bev81 from France said:

If I remember well I tried to normalize WB and sharpness. But you still get remants of Oly / Nikon signatures

Click to expand...

Thanks for posting these.

Surprising. The Oly pictures are only marginally better at high iso, although they were shot with a very high quality lens. I find the 10-30 did very well.

The more I see Vx pictures from this thread, the more I'm convinced to stay with my V1, and wait to see if a V4/5 and fast lenses come along.

André BARELIER · Mar 12, 2016

Jorginho said:
andrbar said:

Bev81 from France said:

If I remember well I tried to normalize WB and sharpness. But you still get remants of Oly / Nikon signatures

Click to expand...

Thanks for posting these.

Surprising. The Oly pictures are only marginally better at high iso, although they were shot with a very high quality lens. I find the 10-30 did very well.

The more I see Vx pictures from this thread, the more I'm convinced to stay with my V1, and wait to see if a V4/5 and fast lenses come along.

Click to expand...

Bev81 from France · Mar 13, 2016

Jorginho said:
The Oly is at ISO1600 and the V1 at ISO 450? Also....the 12-50 is a lens mostly very disliked by m43 users. It is moreless the least liked and not high quality at all.

And I really don't understand why it has such bad reputation, I found it indeed very good within its limitations (namely the size and the slow aperture). I think that when it appeared on the market with e-m5 people were expecting more because the e-m5 was top of the line, so why not the lens also ? Because later came the 12-40 which is effectively another beast

And remember the 12-50 is a dual still + video orientated lens + weathersealing + macro. A bit big (long for sure) but does not extend, silent, and fast focusing. The corners were much better than thoses of my N1 10-30 and it has far more reach. Can be bought easily for around 150 euro (from kit) so it is indeed a very good value lens

Search

N1 or M4/3 comparison

tomhongkong

Veteran Member

André BARELIER

Forum Pro

Richard Murdey

Senior Member

tomhongkong

Veteran Member

Bev81 from France

Leading Member

Bev81 from France

Leading Member

Bev81 from France

Leading Member

André BARELIER

Forum Pro

Tord S Eriksson

Forum Pro

myotisone

Senior Member

Jorginho

Forum Pro

rhlpetrus

Forum Pro

rhlpetrus

Forum Pro

Bev81 from France

Leading Member

André BARELIER

Forum Pro

Jorginho

Forum Pro

André BARELIER

Forum Pro

Bev81 from France

Leading Member

Keyboard shortcuts