Yxa
Senior Member
Is this for real?
where is the moderation?
where is the moderation?
Last edited:
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Olympus EM1-III vs Sony a7S-III (another m43 vs FF)
- Thread starter Funny Valentine
- Start date
Funny Valentine
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,394
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 1,948
Yxa
Senior Member
Rather m43 forum has gone nuts with FF vs m43
And I couldn’t really care less obout therse threads but they sure don’t comply with
”the place to discuss Micro Four Thirds models such as the Panasonic GF, GH, GX & G series and the Olympus Pen and OM-D series.”
Last edited:
I did my own tests 24mp Nikon D600+85/1.8G , 26mp RP+24-105/4 vs G9 + 12-35/2.8 & 42.5/1.2
It is hard to see the difference between them on a RAW files
I've looked at your examples and it's no surprise.
HHHR from Olympus looks better than image from Sony and single image from Sony at very high ISO looks better than from Olympus. Something totally expected based on physics of photography.
One point I will add is that (at least in the past) Olympus' JPEGs from the camera were limited in resolution in comparison with what's possible to do with RAWs and editor with good deBayer algorithms.
HHHR from Olympus looks better than image from Sony and single image from Sony at very high ISO looks better than from Olympus. Something totally expected based on physics of photography.
One point I will add is that (at least in the past) Olympus' JPEGs from the camera were limited in resolution in comparison with what's possible to do with RAWs and editor with good deBayer algorithms.
Funny Valentine
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,394
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 1,948
Another big difference I noticed: noise in the sky at base ISO
In a situation where there's plenty of light, the base ISO of 80 on the Sony proves itself very useful, vs the base ISO of 200 on the Olympus.
Here some example of sky shots on the em1.2 and sony a7sIII at their base ISO, viewed at 400% magnification. EXIF included.
in this situation the lower base ISO and 14 bit color depth makes a difference even if there's plenty of light available.
--
...
George1958
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,475
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 1,259
If you needed to print at 400%? after that it’s a modern taste to have that very processed Sony look . There is noting more natural or better about it and it’s no benchmark . As the late David Thorpe remarked, if you find yOurself zooming into the pixel level, it’s probably a bad photograph
...
It's probably more about lower base ISO than 14bit color depth but that's difficult to validate.
Sony A7SIII has largest full well capacity of all "normal" cameras with 225 ke- (according to Bill Claff) vs 32ke- for E-M1II. As SNR for the sky is mostly dependent on this value, Sony has automatically almost 3EV advantage over E-M1II.
And over most APSC cameras too BTW, as they have similar full well capacities.
When one adds conservative settings for base ISO by Olympus in the E-M1II (it underexposes scene by +/- one EV) then, again, it's no surprise.
Personally I'm mostly shooting RAWs with my E-M1II with +1 EV compensation or exposure bracketing, so I'm more than satisfied with the results.
Funny Valentine
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,394
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 1,948
I always assumed the bandings or purple batches I see in the bright blue sky photos from the Olympus cameras were because of the limited color depth of the sensor.
Sony Japan claims the a7sIII converts 16 bit from the sensor into 14 bit RAW photos.
BTW I'm very satisfied with the results I'm getting on the olympus em1.3, 12-bit is not a problem for me most of the time.
Thank, I learned something new,
Yeah the sensor from the em1.2 and em1.3 does deliver, and once you add the in camera functions available in Olympus cameras, they deliver very high quality results.
Anders W
Forum Pro
Evidently, you failed to notice what I told you already a week ago. The DxO “measured ISO” of the A7S.3 is 61 versus 80 for the E-M1.3. That means that the former can only stomach about 1/3 EV more exposure than the latter. Moreover, ISO 100 is available as a camera setting on the Oly.Another big difference I noticed: noise in the sky at base ISO
In a situation where there's plenty of light, the base ISO of 80 on the Sony proves itself very useful, vs the base ISO of 200 on the Olympus.
Here some example of sky shots on the em1.2 and sony a7sIII at their base ISO, viewed at 400% magnification. EXIF included.
in this situation the lower base ISO and 14 bit color depth makes a difference even if there's plenty of light available.
Besides making sure that you get the ISOs and exposures right, you also need to downsample the Oly image from 20 to 12 megapixels for a fair comparison.
Last edited:
Blue skies have a lot less light in than you think, so the red and green channels can be noisy. If you process even a little bit aggressively, you can get posterisation, make the PDAF pixels appear and get worm patterns.
The advice to shoot landscape at base ISO and add +1 EC often works, unless you have a high DR scene. You could use the histogram and push the curve to just touch the right hand end.
I’m fairly confident I could produce posterisation with a FF sensor at base ISO, having done it in the past.
Andrew
Ab Latchin
Senior Member
What I find interesting is how contentious it is to say that m43rds can match full frame imagery if the format is used to the Max potential. In this case it is the added detail that can be swapped for noise control.
As you mention people here believe ISO 100/64 is somehow not a good setting to use when its behaviour Is in line with other manufacturers for DR distribution.
When I brought that up in another post people asked “who complains about noise in a blue sky?”
As you mention people here believe ISO 100/64 is somehow not a good setting to use when its behaviour Is in line with other manufacturers for DR distribution.
When I brought that up in another post people asked “who complains about noise in a blue sky?”
Funny Valentine
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,394
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 1,948
Here I downsampled it to 12 mp in Olympus workspace, but it can only be saved to jpeg, but as you may know downsampling is a very ineffective way to reduce noise to begin withEvidently, you failed to notice what I told you already a week ago. The DxO “measured ISO” of the A7S.3 is 61 versus 80 for the E-M1.3. That means that the former can only stomach about 1/3 EV more exposure than the latter. Moreover, ISO 100 is available as a camera setting on the Oly.Another big difference I noticed: noise in the sky at base ISO
In a situation where there's plenty of light, the base ISO of 80 on the Sony proves itself very useful, vs the base ISO of 200 on the Olympus.
Here some example of sky shots on the em1.2 and sony a7sIII at their base ISO, viewed at 400% magnification. EXIF included.
in this situation the lower base ISO and 14 bit color depth makes a difference even if there's plenty of light available.
Besides making sure that you get the ISOs and exposures right, you also need to downsample the Oly image from 20 to 12 megapixels for a fair comparison.
Downsampled Olympus:
--
...
Last edited:
ISO100 in the E-M1II is pretty stupid as it's overexposed ISO320.
I'm not sure why Olympus added it but I actively try to avoid it as it's best way to clip the highlights.
In comparison ISO64 is overexposed ISO200 and it's fine.
Anders W
Forum Pro
Yes I know. But that's beside the point if all you want to do is produce a fair test, i.e., one with the same image size/resolution and with no NR or the same amount of NR.Here I downsampled it to 12 mp in Olympus workspace, but it can only be saved to jpeg, but as you may know downsampling is a very ineffective way to reduce noise to begin withEvidently, you failed to notice what I told you already a week ago. The DxO “measured ISO” of the A7S.3 is 61 versus 80 for the E-M1.3. That means that the former can only stomach about 1/3 EV more exposure than the latter. Moreover, ISO 100 is available as a camera setting on the Oly.Another big difference I noticed: noise in the sky at base ISO
In a situation where there's plenty of light, the base ISO of 80 on the Sony proves itself very useful, vs the base ISO of 200 on the Olympus.
Here some example of sky shots on the em1.2 and sony a7sIII at their base ISO, viewed at 400% magnification. EXIF included.
in this situation the lower base ISO and 14 bit color depth makes a difference even if there's plenty of light available.
Besides making sure that you get the ISOs and exposures right, you also need to downsample the Oly image from 20 to 12 megapixels for a fair comparison.
Now try to get the exposure/ISO as well as the brightness right as well.
Downsampled Olympus:
Anders W
Forum Pro
All of that sounds all too familiar. Sigh!What I find interesting is how contentious it is to say that m43rds can match full frame imagery if the format is used to the Max potential. In this case it is the added detail that can be swapped for noise control.
As you mention people here believe ISO 100/64 is somehow not a good setting to use when its behaviour Is in line with other manufacturers for DR distribution.
When I brought that up in another post people asked “who complains about noise in a blue sky?”
Last edited:
unhappymeal
Senior Member
- Messages
- 4,168
- Reaction score
- 4,672
Excellent analysis. I don't get paid for this, so for me, it comes down to comfort for me. Right now the issue for me is no manufacturer has a body and lens-up that lets me go from GM5 + tiny primes to something like E-M1 III with the 200 f/2.8. The Z7 can (for the most part) replace the E-M1 III for me as the larger body, but then I'm still missing a nice tiny body and lens combination like the GM5. I suppose I could use two systems, but I like being able to share lenses between my bodies as needed.I had to rent a Sony a7SIII for a wedding assignment for video, But I had a few big surprises regarding the photography capabilities of both cameras:
- 12MP files from the a7SIII contain as much fine details as 20MP files from the Olympus. I wasn't expecting that.
- 12MP files from the a7SIII can handle a lot more sharpening and contrast in post production, making them a lot more suited for large printing than the EM1.3. Also "Adobe enhance" works better on the a7SIII.
- base ISO 80 on the a7SIII vs base ISO 200 on the EM1.3 makes outdoor shots a lot better on the Sony.
- Sony gets a bad rep for its ergonomics, but it's very good actually. The EM1.3 grip and handling is still more comfortable. But the Sony button placements are better. Opinion...
Here's some equivalent examples at relatively high ISO 6400 photos between the two.
I tried to cripple the Sony as much as possible and advantage the Olympus as much as possible, because the advantages of FF over m43 regarding low light are obvious.
Olympus is shot at ISO 6400 with HHHRS at 50 MP (16 photos merged) and downsampled to 12 MP. No noise reduction.
Sony is shot at ISO 6400, single shot. No noise reduction.
Despite the massive downsampling and merging on the Olympus EM1.3, the Sony is still very close and clean. Impressive. Not to mention the whole process of HHHRS and downsampling on the EM1.3 is very cumbersome and only works for static subjects. Meanwhile the Sony just requires pressing the shutter once and works all the time.
EM1.3
a7SIII
Needless to say the EM1.3 single shot at ISO 6400 is barely usable for client work, but the a7SIII is very usable and clean.
Also 12MP from a full frame sensor give very small 20something MB uncompressed RAW files at 14-bit.
Low megapixel full frame sensors are more impressive than high megapixel ones in my experience.
Overall the EM1.3 remains a very capable photo and video camera. The IBIS+Digital IS on the EM1.3 makes some video footage to look better than the Sony a7SIII.
So is the EM1.3 is better for video and a7SIII better for photos ? Yes, if you shoot handheld a lot and are Ok with 4K 30p.
Surprisingly the 12 MP Sony proved itself more capable in Photography.
Personally I would rate the a7SIII more capable in photography than the other full frame camera I've used, the Canon R6.
unhappymeal
Senior Member
- Messages
- 4,168
- Reaction score
- 4,672
It's important to also know your use case and habits. For the longest time I would never even give full frame a nano second of a thought because every prime brighter than f/1.8 and every zoom faster than f/4 was just more than I was willing to carry. That's changing now with Tamron releasing ultra compact and good f/2.8 zooms and Samyang releasing good, compact and affordable f/1.8 and f/1.4. primes. I suspect that is the case for a lot of other people.
unhappymeal
Senior Member
- Messages
- 4,168
- Reaction score
- 4,672
Absolutely. More light, but then you have to deal with the RF 50mm f/1.8's gag inducing bokeh. Of course, if we want to get truly ridiculous for mass per amount of light collected, we could always toss something like the GM5 + 20 f/1.7 into the mix.
Why? That's the driving reason behind why the GM5 and GR III are my most used cameras. They see more use than my E-M1 III and Z7. I can chuck the GM5 and 2 or 3 lenses in a bag and have less weight and size to carry around than the EOS RP body alone.
unhappymeal
Senior Member
- Messages
- 4,168
- Reaction score
- 4,672
Not only that, but almost all the Canon lenses to date have (excellent) OIS. There are, what, three RF lenses right now that do not have OIS? Two of which are over $3,000 CAD. It's not a big deal.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum