Micro four-thirds vs. Foveon

DMillier said:

xpatUSA said:

DMillier said:

xpatUSA said:

Jozef M said:

DMillier said:

Well, I obviously can't come around your house (now you no longer live in Lewisham) and show you the prints, so you are going to have to trust me on this

The maximum print size my new printer can manage is 16" wide (a mere post card by Scott's elevated standards) but as expected, the DP2M and FZ1000 files are completely indistinguishable under the closest scrutiny.

This confirms my original comment about it being really important what you are going to use a camera for. If your pleasure is to examine images onscreen at 100%, then you really will benefit from the Foveon look. On the other hand, if you aim to print on desktop printers, just about every camera looks exactly the same. For printing, you need to get to Scott-world print sizes where it makes the slightest difference.

m4/3 cameras (and superzooms) are a lot more practical and flexible than a DP2M - which is why, given my needs, there is no point using it.

Click to expand...

Here are some test photos, I did some time ago, between m4/3 and my DP3M (with the super lens that is perfect for the Foveon sensor). Both cameras on tripod with the timer used.

I think there are no differences in detail in prints up to A3+, like you said, exept that the G9 m4/3 sensor (newer sensor then the one from the OP) has much more DR, and more detail in the shadows, and much more real fealing to heavy sun-lit landscape photos, the DP3M photos look more flat or more contrasty (blackish shadows), depends on the way you process the files.

Both cameras have very good IQ, and the m4/3 system is much more handy and fun.

Jozef.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the comparison, Jozef. I'm jealous of your English beer collection. Here in Texas, one local brewery does a "double IPA" - over 9% alc/vol - it's pretty tasty!

Click to expand...

I have a fridge full of weird speciality beers that were a left over from a local beer festival my partner organised to promote the area she is responsible for regenerating. Unfortunately, I don't like real ales and bitters, more of a cider, wine and amaretto guy :-(

Click to expand...

My targets aren't tasty at all:

FYI. I measure the top edge with QuickMTF. Feel free to peep ... :-D

As you can see, I neglected to color-balance, so what you see is what I shot. The GH1 did good!

P.S. was getting interested in the "Leica" 14-50mm models until I realized that they are 4/3, not 'micro' ... I'm not into adapters ...

Click to expand...

Why do the aliasing artefacts have that four leaf clover distribution rather than circular?

Click to expand...

DavidMillier said:

Talking of adaptors, I have a few for my SD14 IR experiments.

I also have a focal reducer FX-EF adaptor that allows me to use lot of different old full frame film lenses on my Fuji XE1 (EF mount spec is good for adapting most SLR lenses, even if it means a double mount setup). It gets near full frame angle of view (1.1x crop) and depth of field plus an effective 1 stop increase in lens speed. Those things seem like a win-win adaptor in theory.

I've been play with a cupboard full of old lenses on both cameras (all M42 on the Sigma).

The most annoying thing with adaptors and mirrorless bodies is they make the lenses stick out on a snout which unbalances the handling, especially on rangefinder style bodies that have no proper hand grip.

Click to expand...

DavidMillier said:

You should have a play with (cheap) adaptors on your panasonic - it can accept almost any old lens. Just think of the hours of fun....

Click to expand...

SiFu said:

Hi Ted!

I remember not being overly happy with either of the old FT "kit" zooms - had both versions of the 14-54/2.8-3.5 as well as the one the came with the Panasonic L1. Everyone loved them, I could not see much else than good and useable but not very good or even spectacular results.

Click to expand...

SiFu said:

For that matter I have yet to get a single lens in native MFT mount.

Click to expand...

xpatUSA said:

however I've just ordered an M42-to-m4/3 adaptor, so we'll see where that leads ...

Click to expand...

SiFu said:

Hi Ted!

I remember not being overly happy with either of the old FT "kit" zooms

Click to expand...

SiFu said:

Hello Ted!

I have been into Olympus since the E100RS and also use a few MFT cameras. Because I only use adapted lenses in manual mode, the PenF is pretty much an ideal MFT body for me.

IQ wise, the SFD mode on the PenF offers very good detail with convenient workability.

Here is one (different days though) series of snaps (100% crops) using a DP3Q (or maybe it was the DP2Q, I don't remember without my shot notes) and the PenF with an equivalently long vintage lens - DP in single shot as well as SFD mode, PenF in SFD mode, downdampled to match DP file sizes:

Here is the PenF crop without downsampling next to the DP SFD crop:

There are at least some flowers on the windows to give an idea of how vegetation is rendered.

Best,

Alex

Click to expand...

PrebenR said:

<> No way you used the same focal length so this comparison is bogus

Click to expand...

xpatUSA said:

PrebenR said:

<> No way you used the same focal length so this comparison is bogus

Click to expand...

No need to candy-coat it, just tell it like it is ...

Click to expand...

SiFu said:

Hello!

Sorry, you have lost me. What is the part that throws you off?

Click to expand...

SiFu said:

Hello!

Still not getting what you are up to? I tried to match them as closely as I could (I think it was the 3Q and the Helios 58/2.0 on a Speedbooster XL). So no big difference here.

Click to expand...

xpatUSA said:

xpatUSA said:

Lin Evans said:

xpatUSA said:

Posting this out of amazement, after carefully setting a Panasonic GH1+14-45mm and the DP2M as equivalent as I could get and very carefully manually focusing on the power pole at the end of the street:

The difference in "detail" should be obvious even in the post view!

Having switched to Sigma (SD9) years ago, I must have become quite blasé as regards the Foveon, although I do recall being mightily impressed with the Merrills when they first came out.

With deteriorating eyesight and ever-shakier hands, I became nostalgic about the ease of use of the Panasonic 'G' models and thought I would try the GH1 for a while, hence the shoot-out.

Distance to the power pole was 175 meters. The GH1 was set to 3:2 aspect ratio to match the DP2M. The DP2M shot was re-sampled down to 4128x2752px giving a slight sharpness advantage to the DP2M but not enough to explain the jaw-dropping difference.

It's almost like the lens is bad (it's the 14-45mm G1 kit lens); I intend to charge up my G1 and see how that compares ...

Click to expand...

Hi Ted,

Focus Magic finds a 7 pixel out of optimum focus on the left image which probably explains the vast difference. It's difficult to say what might have caused this but probably not the lens. It would almost have to be a terrible lens to cause such a dramatic difference. I'm betting that something in the focus mechanism was responsible.

Click to expand...

And, since it was no better on my other MFT camera, that "focus mechanism" would logically be in the lens. So much for the advantage of live view for magnified manual focus, grump.

I'm planning to repeat the shot with my other MFT lens.

Click to expand...

I repeated the shot with the Leica 45mm macro Elmarit and took a shot with the zoom set to 45mm. Shots turned out about the same, with a very slight edge in favor of the Leica. I also took a shot with the zoom set to 14mm, out of interest. Comparing the two zoom shots with yesterday's shot at 22mm was quite instructive:

note the different Nearest Neighbor zoom levels used to equalize the framing

My thinking leans towards blaming neither the lens nor the de-mosaicing. Maybe, in MFT, this is what you get at 650ft (170m).

Above at right, I was quite impressed with the 45mm shot. That street sign is about 100mm tall and the lettering font is about 10mm thick. You can almost, but not quite, read the street name.

At that distance, one pixel at 22mm focal length subtends about 33mm (about 1.3") so what you see is maybe not too bad for a kit lens and in-camera conversion to JPEG ...

--
Ted

Click to expand...

SiFu said:

Hello Ted!

Do you get, what the problem should be? I am at a bit of a loss here.

Click to expand...

PrebenR said:

xpatUSA said:

xpatUSA said:

Lin Evans said:

xpatUSA said:

Posting this out of amazement, after carefully setting a Panasonic GH1+14-45mm and the DP2M as equivalent as I could get and very carefully manually focusing on the power pole at the end of the street:

The difference in "detail" should be obvious even in the post view!

Having switched to Sigma (SD9) years ago, I must have become quite blasé as regards the Foveon, although I do recall being mightily impressed with the Merrills when they first came out.

With deteriorating eyesight and ever-shakier hands, I became nostalgic about the ease of use of the Panasonic 'G' models and thought I would try the GH1 for a while, hence the shoot-out.

Distance to the power pole was 175 meters. The GH1 was set to 3:2 aspect ratio to match the DP2M. The DP2M shot was re-sampled down to 4128x2752px giving a slight sharpness advantage to the DP2M but not enough to explain the jaw-dropping difference.

It's almost like the lens is bad (it's the 14-45mm G1 kit lens); I intend to charge up my G1 and see how that compares ...

Click to expand...

Hi Ted,

Focus Magic finds a 7 pixel out of optimum focus on the left image which probably explains the vast difference. It's difficult to say what might have caused this but probably not the lens. It would almost have to be a terrible lens to cause such a dramatic difference. I'm betting that something in the focus mechanism was responsible.

Click to expand...

And, since it was no better on my other MFT camera, that "focus mechanism" would logically be in the lens. So much for the advantage of live view for magnified manual focus, grump.

I'm planning to repeat the shot with my other MFT lens.

Click to expand...

I repeated the shot with the Leica 45mm macro Elmarit and took a shot with the zoom set to 45mm. Shots turned out about the same, with a very slight edge in favor of the Leica. I also took a shot with the zoom set to 14mm, out of interest. Comparing the two zoom shots with yesterday's shot at 22mm was quite instructive:

note the different Nearest Neighbor zoom levels used to equalize the framing

My thinking leans towards blaming neither the lens nor the de-mosaicing. Maybe, in MFT, this is what you get at 650ft (170m).

Above at right, I was quite impressed with the 45mm shot. That street sign is about 100mm tall and the lettering font is about 10mm thick. You can almost, but not quite, read the street name.

At that distance, one pixel at 22mm focal length subtends about 33mm (about 1.3") so what you see is maybe not too bad for a kit lens and in-camera conversion to JPEG ...

Click to expand...

Either [your] KIT lens is a lemon or you missed focused on the two first images.

Click to expand...

PrebenR said:

SiFu said:

Hello!

Still not getting what you are up to? I tried to match them as closely as I could (I think it was the 3Q and the Helios 58/2.0 on a Speedbooster XL). So no big difference here.

Click to expand...

The Focal length of the DP2Q is is 45mm, the DP3Q is 75mm and the Pen-F is 116mm

If you don't get this, explain to me why you had to downsample the Pen-F image to match the dp Quattro image!

Click to expand...

SiFu said:

Hello!

Now I get it, sorry, it's is your lacking reading comprehension!

That explains it - but I will try to spell it out for you so that even you will hopefully understand.

The Helios is a 58mm lens - put that on a Metabones Speedbooster XL -[both pieces of info are clearly visible in my previous post...] means applying a focal reduction of x0.64, so that the Helios behaves like a roughly 37mm lens; putting this assembly of lens/focal reducer on an MFT body and thereby subjecting it to the x2 crop results in a roughly 74 mm output.

This is not so far off, shooting against the 3Q's 75mm output.

Both were shot from the same spot, focussed at the windows you see - is there a difference in framing? Yes, because of the 3:2 vs 4:3 format choices I did not mind.

On to the next part, you (probably?) missed or did not know/care to inform yourself about - the PenF was in SFD mode [info clearly given in the OP] - in Oly-speak this means the pixel-shift High-Res mode that puts out an 80Megapixel file.

This is what you are seeing.

I downsampled because I can and because I wanted to see what it looks like that way - nothing more, nothing less (and what I called it).

Click to expand...