16MP sensor improvements?

Started Apr 24, 2013 | Questions
grumpyolderman Senior Member • Posts: 1,085
Re: Round 3a

Najinsky wrote:

Right on the sequencing. But I deleted the full size versions when I thought no one was playing so you probably only saw the DPR 40% previews. Still seems like it was enough.

A = F16

B = F22

C = F11

D = F8

All shot with the GF3 and PL45.

I posted a resolution comparison of an alternative test further down the thread.

Thanks for playing!

-Najinsky

well cheers, the 40mm is a great lens, I should get it! I took some very nice headshots/portraits when I tested one for a short while, but something has to give, i can not just accumulate lenses....I am using a 50mm minolta f 1.7 in this range for low light, and although the old lenses are good fun, the good modern mft are miles ahead and come with af of course!

JL

jim stirling
jim stirling Veteran Member • Posts: 7,356
Re: Rather significant, actually, although YMMV applies

Anders W wrote:

jim stirling wrote:

Jonas Palm wrote:

The 16MP sensor shows remarkable advantages in dynamic range (almost 2 f-stops !) and roughly 1 f-stop improvement in high-ISO noise. And of course higher resolution.

Pretty damn significant in my book, you would have to go to the very best full frame sensors to get a similar jump from the 16MP sensor.

That is a bit of hyperbole the new Nikon APS models { D5200/D7100} comfortably outperform the best mFT options by the time you get to the best FF the difference is pretty huge {2.8 stops colour depth, 2 stops DR and at least 1.7 stops high ISO{2 if you take into account the flexibility the extra detail gives you in post processing of noise}.

That's a bit of hyperbole Jim. I guess what you actually wanted to say is that the difference compared to the best FF sensor (I guess you are talking about the D800/D800E), is about 1.5 stops color depth, 2 stops DR at base ISO and slightly more than one stop DR at higher ISOs (the DxO high-ISO score is useless), all of which at the same 8 MP normalized resolution for both cameras alike. If you compare the D800 at its original 36 MP resolution with the best MFT sensor at its original 16 MP resolution, the differences are of course smaller than those I listed.

Now, these comparisons are of course valid only if we compare at the same ISO. If, instead, we compare equivalent photos (same DoF) in higher-ISO shooting, then the best MFT sensor is about half a stop ahead for color depth and more than half a stop ahead for DR (again at the same 8 MP normalized resolution).

Now , Anders we have had this discussion before , and again I would say that I am only interested in output . Lets make our target a nice 18"x12" print { larger would suit the D800 more} from both formats , the detail and DR advantage at low ISO are clearly in favor of the D800. Where our agreement tends to fall apart is my suggestion that at high ISO the extra detail in the D800 allows for one to use additional NR on the 2 stops higher ISO file while still maintaining at least as much detail as and now better noise than a two stops lower ISO E-M5 file.

Once again I will use files from Focus Numerique which we while cannot guarantee absolute controlled light. Certainly give shutter speeds and exposures that suggest their studio set up is certainly more consistent than our beloved DPreview. Below are the links to the  respective raw files I have used 800 ISO on the D800 compared to 200 ISO on the E-M5 in the first comparison, and 6400 ISO on the D800 compared to 1600 ISO on the E-M5. I used central areas of the image with high detail to reduce the effects of lenses , and for easy comparisons.

http://www.focus-numerique.com/test-1390/reflex-nikon-d800-bruit-electronique-12.html

http://www.focus-numerique.com/test-1381/compact-olympus-om-d-e-m5-bruit-electronique-12.html

My processing is exactly as follows for the low ISO files I downloaded the RAW files , turned off default NR in ACR 7.4 to maximize detail, gave standard sharpening, added basic low level NR to D800 , the results are D800 more detailed and if anything less noisy.Then I re -sized both images to match at 300dpi for an 18" print

In the 1600-6400 ISO comparison I again downloaded the RAW files , turned off ACR default NR , used a combination of sharpening and NR to give each file the best balance between maintaining detail and balancing noise. Then I re -sized both images to match at 300dpi for an 18" print .The consequences of further processing to the E-M5 file is higher noise if sharpened, any further NR to the E-M5 file results in loss of detail , in both situations the D800 maintains its 2 stop output advantage advantage

200ISO on E-M5 VS 800 ISO on  D800

e-m5 200 vs D800 800

E-M5 1600ISO vs D800 6400 ISO

My conclusion is that looking at output results the D800 maintains a 2 stop lead over the E-M5 { with regard to detail & noise}. I would be grateful if you { and anyone else who wants to join in } would download the files processing them to give the best output balance between noise and detail. And show me where { you think   }  I am going wrong . I am a real convert to the advantages of higher MP cameras, and hope we move along that road further . This is by far the best way to compare the respective files as I assume what most of us are interested in is a final image { camera + lens + processing = output}

Jim

.

 jim stirling's gear list:jim stirling's gear list
Panasonic FZ1000 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Nikon D810 +12 more
jim stirling
jim stirling Veteran Member • Posts: 7,356
Re: Rather significant, actually, although YMMV applies

I could of course have  taken test shots of my own using my D800 and GH3 , but I have concluded reading others attempts at doing the same that it is a potentially time consuming minefield . I have posted RAW file comparisons before but only within the same system { GH2/GF1 shots  beforehttp://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/37142860 } which is more straightforward as you can use the identical same lens etc.

Jim

 jim stirling's gear list:jim stirling's gear list
Panasonic FZ1000 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Nikon D810 +12 more
Anders W Forum Pro • Posts: 21,468
Re: Rather significant, actually, although YMMV applies

jim stirling wrote:

Anders W wrote:

jim stirling wrote:

Jonas Palm wrote:

The 16MP sensor shows remarkable advantages in dynamic range (almost 2 f-stops !) and roughly 1 f-stop improvement in high-ISO noise. And of course higher resolution.

Pretty damn significant in my book, you would have to go to the very best full frame sensors to get a similar jump from the 16MP sensor.

That is a bit of hyperbole the new Nikon APS models { D5200/D7100} comfortably outperform the best mFT options by the time you get to the best FF the difference is pretty huge {2.8 stops colour depth, 2 stops DR and at least 1.7 stops high ISO{2 if you take into account the flexibility the extra detail gives you in post processing of noise}.

That's a bit of hyperbole Jim. I guess what you actually wanted to say is that the difference compared to the best FF sensor (I guess you are talking about the D800/D800E), is about 1.5 stops color depth, 2 stops DR at base ISO and slightly more than one stop DR at higher ISOs (the DxO high-ISO score is useless), all of which at the same 8 MP normalized resolution for both cameras alike. If you compare the D800 at its original 36 MP resolution with the best MFT sensor at its original 16 MP resolution, the differences are of course smaller than those I listed.

Now, these comparisons are of course valid only if we compare at the same ISO. If, instead, we compare equivalent photos (same DoF) in higher-ISO shooting, then the best MFT sensor is about half a stop ahead for color depth and more than half a stop ahead for DR (again at the same 8 MP normalized resolution).

Now , Anders we have had this discussion before

Right. So why don't we continue exactly where we left off three months ago so that we don't have to repeat ourselves. Here's what I said in my latest reply to which you have yet to respond:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/50752068

, and again I would say that I am only interested in output . Lets make our target a nice 18"x12" print { larger would suit the D800 more} from both formats , the detail and DR advantage at low ISO are clearly in favor of the D800. Where our agreement tends to fall apart is my suggestion that at high ISO the extra detail in the D800 allows for one to use additional NR on the 2 stops higher ISO file while still maintaining at least as much detail as and now better noise than a two stops lower ISO E-M5 file.

Once again I will use files from Focus Numerique which we while cannot guarantee absolute controlled light. Certainly give shutter speeds and exposures that suggest their studio set up is certainly more consistent than our beloved DPreview. Below are the links to the  respective raw files I have used 800 ISO on the D800 compared to 200 ISO on the E-M5 in the first comparison, and 6400 ISO on the D800 compared to 1600 ISO on the E-M5. I used central areas of the image with high detail to reduce the effects of lenses , and for easy comparisons.

http://www.focus-numerique.com/test-1390/reflex-nikon-d800-bruit-electronique-12.html

http://www.focus-numerique.com/test-1381/compact-olympus-om-d-e-m5-bruit-electronique-12.html

My processing is exactly as follows for the low ISO files I downloaded the RAW files , turned off default NR in ACR 7.4 to maximize detail, gave standard sharpening, added basic low level NR to D800 , the results are D800 more detailed and if anything less noisy.Then I re -sized both images to match at 300dpi for an 18" print

In the 1600-6400 ISO comparison I again downloaded the RAW files , turned off ACR default NR , used a combination of sharpening and NR to give each file the best balance between maintaining detail and balancing noise. Then I re -sized both images to match at 300dpi for an 18" print .The consequences of further processing to the E-M5 file is higher noise if sharpened, any further NR to the E-M5 file results in loss of detail , in both situations the D800 maintains its 2 stop output advantage advantage

200ISO on E-M5 VS 800 ISO on  D800

e-m5 200 vs D800 800

E-M5 1600ISO vs D800 6400 ISO

My conclusion is that looking at output results the D800 maintains a 2 stop lead over the E-M5 { with regard to detail & noise}. I would be grateful if you { and anyone else who wants to join in } would download the files processing them to give the best output balance between noise and detail. And show me where { you think   }  I am going wrong . I am a real convert to the advantages of higher MP cameras, and hope we move along that road further . This is by far the best way to compare the respective files as I assume what most of us are interested in is a final image { camera + lens + processing = output}

Jim

.

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +28 more
jim stirling
jim stirling Veteran Member • Posts: 7,356
Re: Rather significant, actually, although YMMV applies

Anders W wrote:

Right. So why don't we continue exactly where we left off three months ago so that we don't have to repeat ourselves. Here's what I said in my latest reply to which you have yet to respond:

Anders, you can quote all the abstract tests you want I am simply asking you to download a couple of images and process them to their best , your download , your processing. I think we both know why you will not be doing it.It is not possible to sharpen the E-M5 images anymore to squeeze out detail without impacting the noise levels, and conversely while you can make the images less noisy it is always at the expense of detail.

It is the simplest thing in the world to categorically prove me wrong by showing me any two images comparisons from these cameras { fairly processed which I know you would do } at 2 stops apart where once processed the E-M5 has more detail and less noise. Of course the problem with that is you cant do it

I guess your stringent scientific approach doesn't stretch to experiments :-). Much easier to quote data sources none of which are impeccable and some of which are contradictory rather than simply process the images and look at them. The facts are that due to the extra detail { which I assume you do not dispute} it is a one click adjustment to to provide an image from the D800 at two stops higher that will have more detail and at worst the same degree of noise, giving the D800  a 2 stop detail/DR advantage  at base ISO along with an at worst same noise more detail file at 2 stops apart.

While not one of the test sites has 100% controlled lighting , Focus Numerique has by far the most consistent exposure settings between cameras. I chose an image with a good combination of details and textures.I used the RAW files,I used a central area of the image to reduce the impact of different lenses ,I processed all the images to achieve the best balance between detail and noise and I posted the results here at 100% crops. I provided links to the actual RAW files so that you or anyone else can give the images their best shot and post  the resulting images.

Jim

 jim stirling's gear list:jim stirling's gear list
Panasonic FZ1000 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Nikon D810 +12 more
jim stirling
jim stirling Veteran Member • Posts: 7,356
Re: Rather significant, actually, although YMMV applies

jim stirling wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Right. So why don't we continue exactly where we left off three months ago so that we don't have to repeat ourselves. Here's what I said in my latest reply to which you have yet to respond:

Anders, you can quote all the abstract tests you want I am simply asking you to download a couple of images and process them to their best , your download , your processing. I think we both know why you will not be doing it.It is not possible to sharpen the E-M5 images anymore to squeeze out detail without impacting the noise levels, and conversely while you can make the images less noisy it is always at the expense of detail. The only reason I have not replied is that I missed the post. I am not here that often now.

It is the simplest thing in the world to categorically prove me wrong by showing me any two images comparisons from these cameras { fairly processed which I know you would do } at 2 stops apart where once processed the E-M5 has more detail and less noise. Of course the problem with that is you cant do it

I guess your stringent scientific approach doesn't stretch to experiments :-). Much easier to quote data sources none of which are impeccable and some of which are contradictory rather than simply process the images and look at them. The facts are that due to the extra detail { which I assume you do not dispute} it is a one click adjustment to to provide an image from the D800 at two stops higher that will have more detail and at worst the same degree of noise, giving the D800  a 2 stop detail/DR advantage  at base ISO along with an at worst same noise more detail file at 2 stops apart.

While not one of the test sites has 100% controlled lighting , Focus Numerique has by far the most consistent exposure settings between cameras. I chose an image with a good combination of details and textures.I used the RAW files,I used a central area of the image to reduce the impact of different lenses ,I processed all the images to achieve the best balance between detail and noise and I posted the results here at 100% crops. I provided links to the actual RAW files so that you or anyone else can give the images their best shot and post  the resulting images.

Jim

 jim stirling's gear list:jim stirling's gear list
Panasonic FZ1000 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Nikon D810 +12 more
Anders W Forum Pro • Posts: 21,468
Re: Rather significant, actually, although YMMV applies
1

jim stirling wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Right. So why don't we continue exactly where we left off three months ago so that we don't have to repeat ourselves. Here's what I said in my latest reply to which you have yet to respond: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/50752068

Anders, you can quote all the abstract tests you want

I didn't quote any tests in my latest reply. I asked you some questions via the post from three months ago that I linked to. You didn't answer them. Enough said.

I am simply asking you to download a couple of images and process them to their best , your download , your processing. I think we both know why you will not be doing it.It is not possible to sharpen the E-M5 images anymore to squeeze out detail without impacting the noise levels, and conversely while you can make the images less noisy it is always at the expense of detail.

It is the simplest thing in the world to categorically prove me wrong by showing me any two images comparisons from these cameras { fairly processed which I know you would do } at 2 stops apart where once processed the E-M5 has more detail and less noise. Of course the problem with that is you cant do it

I guess your stringent scientific approach doesn't stretch to experiments :-). Much easier to quote data sources none of which are impeccable and some of which are contradictory rather than simply process the images and look at them. The facts are that due to the extra detail { which I assume you do not dispute} it is a one click adjustment to to provide an image from the D800 at two stops higher that will have more detail and at worst the same degree of noise, giving the D800  a 2 stop detail/DR advantage  at base ISO along with an at worst same noise more detail file at 2 stops apart.

While not one of the test sites has 100% controlled lighting , Focus Numerique has by far the most consistent exposure settings between cameras. I chose an image with a good combination of details and textures.I used the RAW files,I used a central area of the image to reduce the impact of different lenses ,I processed all the images to achieve the best balance between detail and noise and I posted the results here at 100% crops. I provided links to the actual RAW files so that you or anyone else can give the images their best shot and post  the resulting images.

Jim

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +28 more
jim stirling
jim stirling Veteran Member • Posts: 7,356
Re: Rather significant, actually, although YMMV applies

Anders W wrote:

jim stirling wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Right. So why don't we continue exactly where we left off three months ago so that we don't have to repeat ourselves. Here's what I said in my latest reply to which you have yet to respond: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/50752068

Anders, you can quote all the abstract tests you want

I didn't quote any tests in my latest reply. I asked you some questions via the post from three months ago that I linked to. You didn't answer them. Enough said.

That thread reached its maximum post level  3 months ago Anders you had nearly 40 posts in it .For those of us who do not post as regularly it is quite difficult to go back a week or even a few days later and respond when the rate of posting in the mFT forum is so high.

In an admittedly belated answer to your questions:

The 12-50 on the E-M5 is shooting at 1/60 sec;   f/5.6; {a shutter speed 2 stops slower than that on the D800}    ISO 1600 at 25mm, I used a central crop where it performs very well indeed.

From the SLRGEAR review of the 12-50

“” the lens offers excellent results for sharpness, corner shading and distortion. "

Their graph for the 12-50 at 25mm and F5.6 shows very good sharpness levels in the file  particularly good at the central area

The 50mm on the D800 is shooting at 1/250 sec;   f/5.6; { a shutter speed 2 stops faster than the E-M5}    ISO 6400. I used a central crop where it performs very well indeed.

From the SLRGEAR conclusion

"" it isn't until ƒ/5.6 that I would say the lens is completely sharp from corner to corner."

The car is not fully contained in the DOF of the 50mm on the D800 which is why I used a central are from both cameras, thus both areas are in focus both areas contain a high level of detail and black areas to demonstrate noise levels. I never claimed that they were at the same DOF . The central portion {which I used} in all sample files is sharp, in focus and at a good setting for each lens to deliver excellent image quality

I am not being unreasonable in any way in asking you to download a couple of RAW files and process them " all  "to get their best results , and posts 100% crop comparisons .These Focus Numerique samples have  the most consistent exposures of any of the review sites. In fact I would be happy for others to do the same and see a spectrum of results.

Jim

I am simply asking you to download a couple of images and process them to their best , your download , your processing. I think we both know why you will not be doing it.It is not possible to sharpen the E-M5 images anymore to squeeze out detail without impacting the noise levels, and conversely while you can make the images less noisy it is always at the expense of detail.

It is the simplest thing in the world to categorically prove me wrong by showing me any two images comparisons from these cameras { fairly processed which I know you would do } at 2 stops apart where once processed the E-M5 has more detail and less noise. Of course the problem with that is you cant do it

I guess your stringent scientific approach doesn't stretch to experiments :-). Much easier to quote data sources none of which are impeccable and some of which are contradictory rather than simply process the images and look at them. The facts are that due to the extra detail { which I assume you do not dispute} it is a one click adjustment to to provide an image from the D800 at two stops higher that will have more detail and at worst the same degree of noise, giving the D800  a 2 stop detail/DR advantage  at base ISO along with an at worst same noise more detail file at 2 stops apart.

While not one of the test sites has 100% controlled lighting , Focus Numerique has by far the most consistent exposure settings between cameras. I chose an image with a good combination of details and textures.I used the RAW files,I used a central area of the image to reduce the impact of different lenses ,I processed all the images to achieve the best balance between detail and noise and I posted the results here at 100% crops. I provided links to the actual RAW files so that you or anyone else can give the images their best shot and post  the resulting images.

Jim

 jim stirling's gear list:jim stirling's gear list
Panasonic FZ1000 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Nikon D810 +12 more
Anders W Forum Pro • Posts: 21,468
Re: Rather significant, actually, although YMMV applies
1

jim stirling wrote:

Anders W wrote:

jim stirling wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Right. So why don't we continue exactly where we left off three months ago so that we don't have to repeat ourselves. Here's what I said in my latest reply to which you have yet to respond: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/50752068

Anders, you can quote all the abstract tests you want

I didn't quote any tests in my latest reply. I asked you some questions via the post from three months ago that I linked to. You didn't answer them. Enough said.

That thread reached its maximum post level  3 months ago Anders you had nearly 40 posts in it .For those of us who do not post as regularly it is quite difficult to go back a week or even a few days later and respond when the rate of posting in the mFT forum is so high.

I didn't complain about the fact that you didn't respond three months ago. I complained about the fact that you didn't respond when I asked you now.

You are asking me to take seriously a comparison between a (recently redesigned) 50/1.4 normal prime for FF at its peak aperture (f/5.6) with a 12-50 kit zoom for MFT with a so-so reputation for resolution and at an aperture already beyond the peak of what MFT can do at its best (due to diffraction). In your attempt to convince me that this is reasonable, you are using data from SLRGear for which no known basis for cross-format comparisons exist. The comparable data from LensRentals are as follows (lp/ih for center/average across the frame based on unsharpened output from RAW files) are:

50/1.4 at f/5.6 on D800: 1073/889

12-50/3.5-6.3 at 25 mm and f/5.6 on an E-M5: 830/670

The lens that should have been used for proper comparison with the 50/1.4 is the 20/1.7 or the 25/1.4 at their peak aperture. The figures for these are:

20/1.7 at f/4 on an E-M5: 1075/880

25/1.4 at f/4 on an E-M5: 980/850

Sources:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/05/wide-angle-micro-43-imatest-results

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/05/standard-range-micro-43-imatest-results

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/05/wide-angle-micro-43-imatest-results

In an admittedly belated answer to your questions:

The 12-50 on the E-M5 is shooting at 1/60 sec;   f/5.6; {a shutter speed 2 stops slower than that on the D800}    ISO 1600 at 25mm, I used a central crop where it performs very well indeed.

From the SLRGEAR review of the 12-50

“” the lens offers excellent results for sharpness, corner shading and distortion. "

Their graph for the 12-50 at 25mm and F5.6 shows very good sharpness levels in the file  particularly good at the central area

The 50mm on the D800 is shooting at 1/250 sec;   f/5.6; { a shutter speed 2 stops faster than the E-M5}    ISO 6400. I used a central crop where it performs very well indeed.

From the SLRGEAR conclusion

"" it isn't until ƒ/5.6 that I would say the lens is completely sharp from corner to corner."

The car is not fully contained in the DOF of the 50mm on the D800 which is why I used a central are from both cameras, thus both areas are in focus both areas contain a high level of detail and black areas to demonstrate noise levels. I never claimed that they were at the same DOF . The central portion {which I used} in all sample files is sharp, in focus and at a good setting for each lens to deliver excellent image quality

The point is that the area you chose is not equally in focus in both shots. Apart from the greater DoF of the E-M5 shot, the focus is clearly placed differently, i.e., closer to the camera in the case of the E-M5 shot, which keeps the area you selected within the DoF but certainly not at peak focus.

I am not being unreasonable in any way in asking you to download a couple of RAW files and process them " all  "to get their best results , and posts 100% crop comparisons .These Focus Numerique samples have  the most consistent exposures of any of the review sites. In fact I would be happy for others to do the same and see a spectrum of results.

Of course you are being unreasonable when you ask me to be convinced by the clearly unsuitable data (the images from Focus Numerique) that you selected. I have already shown you (and others) what the situation is actually like in the comparison between the E-M5 at ISO 1600 versus the D800 at ISO 6400 two times around, i.e., here:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/50310594

and here (click on "show signature" if the images don't show)

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/50462878

in both cases using data (images) that you rather than I had initially selected. What's wrong with those two tests and in what way would the clearly unsuitable source material you have chosen for your third attempt be any better?

I am simply asking you to download a couple of images and process them to their best , your download , your processing. I think we both know why you will not be doing it.It is not possible to sharpen the E-M5 images anymore to squeeze out detail without impacting the noise levels, and conversely while you can make the images less noisy it is always at the expense of detail.

It is the simplest thing in the world to categorically prove me wrong by showing me any two images comparisons from these cameras { fairly processed which I know you would do } at 2 stops apart where once processed the E-M5 has more detail and less noise. Of course the problem with that is you cant do it

I guess your stringent scientific approach doesn't stretch to experiments :-). Much easier to quote data sources none of which are impeccable and some of which are contradictory rather than simply process the images and look at them. The facts are that due to the extra detail { which I assume you do not dispute} it is a one click adjustment to to provide an image from the D800 at two stops higher that will have more detail and at worst the same degree of noise, giving the D800  a 2 stop detail/DR advantage  at base ISO along with an at worst same noise more detail file at 2 stops apart.

While not one of the test sites has 100% controlled lighting , Focus Numerique has by far the most consistent exposure settings between cameras. I chose an image with a good combination of details and textures.I used the RAW files,I used a central area of the image to reduce the impact of different lenses ,I processed all the images to achieve the best balance between detail and noise and I posted the results here at 100% crops. I provided links to the actual RAW files so that you or anyone else can give the images their best shot and post  the resulting images.

Jim

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +28 more
grumpyolderman Senior Member • Posts: 1,085
Re: GF-3 / OM-D Shoot-out

Najinsky wrote:

Now it was OM-Ds turn to have the additional recovery process as well. Wavy lines mostly recovered but vertical lines in parasol now lost on the OM-D too. Wavy lines on the GF-3 shot now lost too, although when you know they are there you can get a hint of them in the grain.

So it seems pretty clear the OM-D keeps a clear lead up to F16. At F22 some of the lead has been erroded by diffraction but is still picking up more detail.

At least, that's how I read it, what's your take?

I think you are spot on, and thanks for this nice comparison, better to show than to argue endlessly...:-) of course the PL45/2.8 is a pretty sharp lens, I guess with something like the 14-42 the results would not have been as clear cut, so I wonder when we will get the first 24mP m43 sensors to take full advantage of all these great new lenses coming our way?

JL

Yehuda_ Regular Member • Posts: 324
Re: How about some pictures?

I'm sorry I won't back my post with photos but here's my 2¢:
I owned the nikon d7000 with primes, kit zooms, high quality 17-50 f2.8 zoom, 105 f2.8 vr macro lens etc.
I also owned the olympus epl1 with the kit zoom, 20mm f1.7, 45mm f1.8, 25 f1.4, 12-50, 14-45,14-42 pz, 45-200, 7.5 fisheye, panasonic gx1, olympus em5.
Of course not all at the same time.
I buy, shoot, enjoy and sell.

This photo obsession and pixel peeping has gotten too me and I won't repeat it.

I see zero real life difference between my ex nikon kit and the em5 in terms of image quality.
If anything, the em5 is more consistent and reliable and the kit lens for aps-c were worse than their m43 cousins.
The epl1 was a step back as an intermediate kit between the d7000 and the em5.
The em5 and gx1, shot in jpeg and especially in raw have nothing to be shy next to typical aps-c kits.

 Yehuda_'s gear list:Yehuda_'s gear list
Sony RX100 III Panasonic LX100
Yehuda_ Regular Member • Posts: 324
Re: How about some pictures?

And I forgot to mention I also shot a lot with ultra wide lenses on my nikon d7000 such as the sigma 10-20 and others.

Looking back at my photos I was astounded to see how the overall quality of my nikon photos for all lenses besides the 105mm macro lens have horrible uneven sharpness in the corners.
And all my lenses were professinaly calibrated to the camera body.
This whole debate of aps vs. m43 seems redundant and academic in my opinion.
If anyone reads this and out helps him focus on shooting and having fun and achieving great results without obsessing on these bending debates it was worth my time typing these messages.
And if it wasn't clear from my message - the old 12mp sensor are definitely and noticeably worse than the newer 16mp both of panny and sony in the omd em5.
Working with both in raw shows this very clearly.

 Yehuda_'s gear list:Yehuda_'s gear list
Sony RX100 III Panasonic LX100
BJL Veteran Member • Posts: 9,154
When I compare at the same displayed image size ...

you are talking about the irrelevant case of comparing at  "equal PPI", so viewing the higher rssolution image enlarged more than the lower resolution image. I instead compare images at the same print size, or same size on screen, and then the diffraction effects are the same.

Another victim of  "100% pixels on-screen comparison" disease, I suspect.

-- hide signature --

Smaller lenses, better in low light, more telephoto reach:
you can have any *two* at one time.

 BJL's gear list:BJL's gear list
Olympus E-1 Olympus E-620 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm 1:2.8-4.0 SWD +8 more
Najinsky Veteran Member • Posts: 5,739
Re: GF-3 / OM-D Shoot-out

grumpyolderman wrote:

Najinsky wrote:

Now it was OM-Ds turn to have the additional recovery process as well. Wavy lines mostly recovered but vertical lines in parasol now lost on the OM-D too. Wavy lines on the GF-3 shot now lost too, although when you know they are there you can get a hint of them in the grain.

So it seems pretty clear the OM-D keeps a clear lead up to F16. At F22 some of the lead has been erroded by diffraction but is still picking up more detail.

At least, that's how I read it, what's your take?

I think you are spot on, and thanks for this nice comparison, better to show than to argue endlessly...:-)

The arguing is a sport entirely independent of the photography so can happen with or without the images. Arguing what the images show, arguing how the testing was done, etc.

But at least an image help add a context. The original sunflower image, taken with a GF-3 and PL45 @ F22 is severely diffracted. This is predicted quite clearly from the DPR's MTF test.

But while the tests might lead one to think the results would therefore be unusable. At slideshow resolutions or even as an image for a good sized calendar, it would still work well with some interesting detail to explore:

Sunflower Bud

of course the PL45/2.8 is a pretty sharp lens, I guess with something like the 14-42 the results would not have been as clear cut, so I wonder when we will get the first 24mP m43 sensors to take full advantage of all these great new lenses coming our way?

Less clear cut, but there's still some usable detail down at that yellow 750lpph line and the extra resolution/efficiency of the 16MP sensors v the older 12MP are still better able to discern it. Even many kit lenses have fairly sharp centres, it's really away from the centre where they suffer most.

I'm not really chomping for a 24MP sensor just yet. I think a nice 18MP sensor, 14bit raws, but a really quantifiable boost in sensor efficiency (it's ability to make to most of the light it receives) would be make for an IQ leap as significant as from the 12MP technology to the OM-D.

It you take DXOs rating of the Olympus 75/1.8 tested on a GH2, it scores 11pMP (perceptual megapixels). This means 5pMP are being lost and this is primarily due to the sensor efficiency.

If we had a significant boost in sensor efficiency, and 14 bits to carry that extra data, (even if sticking with only 16MP) we would see substantial improvements in IQ.

A lens like the 75/1.8 might well then test at 14 or 15pMP, which is well into the mid-territory of some FF Nikons or Canons with premium glass (although the best FFs and glass are now scoring in the low twenties).

Edit: Thanks for commenting. It took a long time processing and preparing the results, nice to know at least one person looked!

-Najinsky

grumpyolderman Senior Member • Posts: 1,085
Re: GF-3 / OM-D Shoot-out

I think you are right, higher DR would be a lot more important than more MP, and I would not worry, Richard Butler said a while ago that for every person that writes/answers to a post there a hundred reading it, I guess to get them more involved then have the "likes". the sunflower is really a very nice shot, diffraction limited or not...

JL

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads