Considering 4:3, but have some questions about IQ

So at the moment I have my toe dipped into the sony APSC ecosystem, with an a6000 and the kit lens + the 55-210 zoom. I've had a few issues with it though, and I have the opportunity to sell it all and exchange for another system.

Figured it would be better to do it now, before I buy any more lenses!

One issue I had with the sony system is that there are very few lenses, and a lot of the ones I like have compromises. For example, they have some fairly decent zooms, but they're all pretty slow in aperture. And the only macro is 30mm, though it's also very cheap.

I had been under the impression that micro 4:3 had more lenses at better prices, with the downside being the smaller sensor size. However today I spent some time on DXOMark to look through the 'best' lenses... Here are some of the scores -

Sony 55-210 =   13

Sony 18-200 =   13

Panasonic 14-140   = 9

Olympus 14-150   = 10

The sony 55210 and the panasonic are both very cheap, with the Olympus being the same price as the sony 18-200 (twice the price of the others...) and yet the sony lenses are leaps and bounds better image quality?

Though saying this, the 'kit' lenses for panasonic seem to get marginally higher marks compared to sony's, so maybe it evens out on average over the line...

This is turning into some kind of 4/3 bashing, which isn't my intention. I'm partly wondering if I am misinterpreting the results of these tests somehow. I really want the 4:3 lineup to be worth the hassle of changing systems haha.

Both systems are small, I guess I want to be able to get good image quality for my money.

Any tips or thoughts are welcome, sorry for the ramble, late night

Nirurin wrote:

So at the moment I have my toe dipped into the sony APSC ecosystem, with an a6000 and the kit lens + the 55-210 zoom. I've had a few issues with it though, and I have the opportunity to sell it all and exchange for another system.

Figured it would be better to do it now, before I buy any more lenses!

One issue I had with the sony system is that there are very few lenses, and a lot of the ones I like have compromises. For example, they have some fairly decent zooms, but they're all pretty slow in aperture. And the only macro is 30mm, though it's also very cheap.

I had been under the impression that micro 4:3 had more lenses at better prices, with the downside being the smaller sensor size. However today I spent some time on DXOMark to look through the 'best' lenses... Here are some of the scores -

Sony 55-210 = 13

Sony 18-200 = 13

Panasonic 14-140 = 9

Olympus 14-150 = 10

The sony 55210 and the panasonic are both very cheap, with the Olympus being the same price as the sony 18-200 (twice the price of the others...) and yet the sony lenses are leaps and bounds better image quality?

Though saying this, the 'kit' lenses for panasonic seem to get marginally higher marks compared to sony's, so maybe it evens out on average over the line...

That makes me question the DXO analysis. Oly and Panny lenses I've used are comparable.

Better try out Oly (or Panny) and see what you think. Edited: I didn't notice which m4/3 lenses you had compared. Nonetheless try out m4/3. the 12-40 is superb.

This is turning into some kind of 4/3 bashing, which isn't my intention. I'm partly wondering if I am misinterpreting the results of these tests somehow. I really want the 4:3 lineup to be worth the hassle of changing systems haha.

Both systems are small, I guess I want to be able to get good image quality for my money.

Any tips or thoughts are welcome, sorry for the ramble, late night

Nirurin wrote:

However today I spent some time on DXOMark to look through the 'best' lenses... Here are some of the scores -

Sony 55-210 = 13

Sony 18-200 = 13

Panasonic 14-140 = 9

Olympus 14-150 = 10

The sony 55210 and the panasonic are both very cheap, with the Olympus being the same price as the sony 18-200 (twice the price of the others...) and yet the sony lenses are leaps and bounds better image quality?

Both the M43 lenses you've chosen have a wider zoom range than the Sonys and are not thought to be among the highest quality M43 lenses.

Have a look at the 40-150mm kit lens ($99 quite often, score 14, http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Olympus/Olympus-MZUIKO-DIGITAL-ED-40-150mm-40-56). I have this (and the 14-150mm)

or the 45-150mm Panasonic, score 13 http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Panasonic/Panasonic-LUMIX-G-VARIO-45-150mm-F4-56-ASPH-MEGA-OIS

perhaps.

I've never chosen a camera or lens based on charts and numbers.  I've never found it useful.  I pick out two or three cameras and then I look for images taken with those cameras, the sort of landscapes and flower closeups that I like to do.  I look for images taken by people are much better than I am (to give me an idea of what I could do if I really try) and people who are comparable to me (to see what I'm likely to get).  Then I start looking at the lenses available and their cost, and look for images taken with those lenses.

When I moved from an Olympus DSLR (an E-600) to micro 4/3rds, I was also looking at a Nikon D7000 or D7100 or D5300. I also looked at the Sony NEX system.

As I narrowed things down, I took the size and weight of the cameras and the lenses I wanted into consideration.  When I finished looking at photos and thinking about what I wanted in a camera system, how much I wanted to spend, and how much weight I wanted to carry, I moved to m43's. I couldn't be happier.  It ticks off all the boxes for me for image quality, lenses, affordability and portability.

So, while I understand the need to quantify a decision (this number is bigger that that number!), I think that looking at images produced by a camera by good photographers, and checking lenses the same way, is a lot more useful than looking at a chart.

Nirurin wrote:

So at the moment I have my toe dipped into the sony APSC ecosystem, with an a6000 and the kit lens + the 55-210 zoom. I've had a few issues with it though, and I have the opportunity to sell it all and exchange for another system.

Figured it would be better to do it now, before I buy any more lenses!

One issue I had with the sony system is that there are very few lenses, and a lot of the ones I like have compromises. For example, they have some fairly decent zooms, but they're all pretty slow in aperture. And the only macro is 30mm, though it's also very cheap.

I had been under the impression that micro 4:3 had more lenses at better prices, with the downside being the smaller sensor size. However today I spent some time on DXOMark to look through the 'best' lenses... Here are some of the scores -

Sony 55-210 = 13

Sony 18-200 = 13

Panasonic 14-140 = 9

Olympus 14-150 = 10

The sony 55210 and the panasonic are both very cheap, with the Olympus being the same price as the sony 18-200 (twice the price of the others...) and yet the sony lenses are leaps and bounds better image quality?

Though saying this, the 'kit' lenses for panasonic seem to get marginally higher marks compared to sony's, so maybe it evens out on average over the line...

This is turning into some kind of 4/3 bashing, which isn't my intention. I'm partly wondering if I am misinterpreting the results of these tests somehow. I really want the 4:3 lineup to be worth the hassle of changing systems haha.

Both systems are small, I guess I want to be able to get good image quality for my money.

Any tips or thoughts are welcome, sorry for the ramble, late night

If your goal is too shoot mirrorless with a couple of slow zooms, no need to switch. Stay right where you are and save your money. You'll only gain size reduction with m43.

All cameras made today are good, in fact great.  Given comparable image sensor process versions, the total image information captured is going to be proportional to the sensor size.  m43 is about one stop below APS-C, which is about one stop below full frame.

Lo and behold, the DxOMark that reflects raw information content shows about 1.4x better resolution, which is one stop.  You don't need to get pedantic to understand this makes logical sense.  Furthermore, the A6000/6300 has a 24 MPixels, which will generally result in more net information (but not always).

As someone who moved "down" from Nikon full frame to m43 a year ago, what I did was to find raw files from Fuji APS-C, Nikon FX (which I had, obviously), and m43.  I then processed them in the way that I would process, and compared the overall quality.  My conclusion was that m43 16 Mpixel images were good enough for my purposes.  Obviously, I take a hit in high ISO and scenes with wider dynamic range, but these are offset by Olympus IBIS, and more importantly by the HUGE HUGE HUGE size/weight advantage, which was my priority.  The size/weight comes more from the lenses, like the amazing Olympus 12, 45, and 75mm primes.  In what system can I get 150mm equivalent f/1.8 light gathering in such a tiny package (and with GREAT quality).  As far as zooms are concerned, they are a compromise in every system, and I wouldn't just a system by its consumer zooms.  The Olympus 40-150mm f/4-5.6 "R" zoom, however, is perfectly good enough for walking around.

I have been pretty satisfied, but obviously sometimes I miss my big beautiful 24 Mpixel D600 files, but then I console myself by remembering that I wouldn't have had that camera and those big primes along and would have gotten no image.

I recommend that you down some real RAW files (many, many, many out there), and process them your way.  If they aren't good enough, look at the amazing new Fuji X-Pro2 24 MPixel sensor (probably the best out there short of full frame today) or Sony.  Sony is great, except the ergonomics of the body are pretty grim and the lenses are gigantic full frame lenses (just like DSLRs), and they are equally or more expensive.

Nirurin wrote:

If your goal is too shoot mirrorless with a couple of slow zooms, no need to switch. Stay right where you are and save your money. You'll only gain size reduction with m43.

Mind if I ask what areas other than size reduction would have gains if I changed to m43? I also plan to do a fair bit of macro work, as well as astrophotography. (My plan was to get a samyang 12mm f2 one day, dont know if there is an m43 equivalent yet)

Well, if you venturing beyond the slow zooms, then it's a different story.

Sony does have some cheap primes, but the main advantage of m43 is the selection of native glass is bigger and still growing. you have to mostly rely on FF lenses for new releases on Sony which means bigger and usually more expensive.

The macro area is well covered in m43. 3 prime lenses already. One more out in a few weeks/months. Many Pro zooms and standard primes also have respectable pseudo macro capabilities. Only thing missing is a telephoto macro prime (like the old Sigma 150mm f2.8).

If you go wider than 24mm in 35mm terms (12mm with m43), it's more slim pickings with m43. Only zooms and fisheyes exist, with I think the ultra fast Voightlander lens (10,5mm f0.95). There has been consistent requests for a true, non-fisheye, ultra wide prime on m43 but still nothing yet. One of the few areas where there is a glaring omission with m43.

Nirurin wrote:

Soulhand wrote:

Nirurin wrote:

However today I spent some time on DXOMark to look through the 'best' lenses... Here are some of the scores -

Sony 55-210 = 13

Sony 18-200 = 13

Panasonic 14-140 = 9

Olympus 14-150 = 10

The sony 55210 and the panasonic are both very cheap, with the Olympus being the same price as the sony 18-200 (twice the price of the others...) and yet the sony lenses are leaps and bounds better image quality?

Both the M43 lenses you've chosen have a wider zoom range than the Sonys and are not thought to be among the highest quality M43 lenses.

Wider zoom range? Ignoring the 55-210 (which was added because I own it, and it often a bundled lens), these are all roughly the same zoom range aren't they?

18-200 = 24-300 in 35mm equivalent

IICR, 18-200 in APSC is 18 x 1.5 = 27? So should it be a 27/28mm ~ 300mm in FF eq?

14-140 = 28 - 280 in 35mm equivalent

So actually the sony has the wider zoom range. And also the only zooms with better ratings for 4/3 than these are incredibly expensive, more expensive that the crazy sony Zeiss prices.

Have a look at the 40-150mm kit lens ($99 quite often, score 14, http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Olympus/Olympus-MZUIKO-DIGITAL-ED-40-150mm-40-56). I have this (and the 14-150mm)

or the 45-150mm Panasonic, score 13 http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Panasonic/Panasonic-LUMIX-G-VARIO-45-150mm-F4-56-ASPH-MEGA-OIS

perhaps.

Yeh these seem to be the equivalents of the 55-210 sony, so at least I would be able to get the same lens range as I do now on the sony. I was hoping for a relatively compact and high quality all-in-one zoom though, thats why I listed the ones above that start at wide angles.

I have never used Sony (except for its poor TX10 as a backup, bad bad idea....), but the following candid shot (3+ meters away, picked up camera and shoot) from 14-140 II on GX7 impressed me a lot:

Wishing it might be within your satisfactory level...

Nirurin wrote:

If your goal is too shoot mirrorless with a couple of slow zooms, no need to switch. Stay right where you are and save your money. You'll only gain size reduction with m43.

Mind if I ask what areas other than size reduction would have gains if I changed to m43? I also plan to do a fair bit of macro work, as well as astrophotography. (My plan was to get a samyang 12mm f2 one day, dont know if there is an m43 equivalent yet)

My goal was to lighten the weight from my 1.6x canons.  I bought a Sony a6000 a normal and tele kit lens at great price new.  Gave it a year.  Hated how the camera handled.  Not happy w the lenses or even the very expensive 18 to 135 power zoom.  Sold it all at a loss.

Now I'm trying m43.  I found both the panny gx8 and g85 easier to handle than Sony.   I found the 14 to 140 ii panny sharper than my 2 Sony lenses.

This is all subjective.  You may find the opposite.  I am foi going by my results not any published tests.

For me the switch is motivated only by size and weight esp w the 100 400PL now available.  If I was a 25 y.o. weight lifter I'd shoot ot full frame.

Nirurin wrote:

...today I spent some time on DXOMark to look through the 'best' lenses... Here are some of the scores -

Sony 55-210 = 13

Sony 18-200 = 13

Panasonic 14-140 = 9

Olympus 14-150 = 10

The sony 55210 and the panasonic are both very cheap, with the Olympus being the same price as the sony 18-200 (twice the price of the others...) and yet the sony lenses are leaps and bounds better image quality?

You will find the DxO lens scores go up and down when you select a body with more or less MP. Try it. The Panasonic in your list as a 9, scores 13 on an Olympus E-PL5 body. So it is not the lenses that are being scored alone. So you can only really compare lens vs lens on the same body.

Unfortunately DxO have still not got any lenses tested on the new 20MP micro four thirds bodies, which would up their scores still further.

Personally I ignore DxO like the plague for a number of reasons, and I advise you do the same unless you want to get very technical.

Nirurin wrote:

So at the moment I have my toe dipped into the sony APSC ecosystem, with an a6000 and the kit lens + the 55-210 zoom. I've had a few issues with it though, and I have the opportunity to sell it all and exchange for another system.

Figured it would be better to do it now, before I buy any more lenses!

One issue I had with the sony system is that there are very few lenses, and a lot of the ones I like have compromises. For example, they have some fairly decent zooms, but they're all pretty slow in aperture. And the only macro is 30mm, though it's also very cheap.

I had been under the impression that micro 4:3 had more lenses at better prices, with the downside being the smaller sensor size. However today I spent some time on DXOMark to look through the 'best' lenses... Here are some of the scores -

Sony 55-210 = 13

Sony 18-200 = 13

Panasonic 14-140 = 9

Olympus 14-150 = 10

The sony 55210 and the panasonic are both very cheap, with the Olympus being the same price as the sony 18-200 (twice the price of the others...) and yet the sony lenses are leaps and bounds better image quality?

Though saying this, the 'kit' lenses for panasonic seem to get marginally higher marks compared to sony's, so maybe it evens out on average over the line...

This is turning into some kind of 4/3 bashing, which isn't my intention. I'm partly wondering if I am misinterpreting the results of these tests somehow. I really want the 4:3 lineup to be worth the hassle of changing systems haha.

Both systems are small, I guess I want to be able to get good image quality for my money.

Any tips or thoughts are welcome, sorry for the ramble, late night

DXO sharpness numbers do not, in any way work cross platform. The only way you can even come close to determining how one lens/camera combo could fare against the other is if both systems have the EXACT same lens that you can normalize the results to.

Luckily for you, you have an A6000. And there is a lens on that system that is the EXACT same lens on m43's: the Sigma 60mm f2.8. The lens is literally a carbon copy of itself for both systems, the difference is the mount alone. Now look at the DXO sharpness numbers for both systems and then see how the lenses for each system compare to the sharpness of the Sigma 60mm on each of their respective systems. You will find plenty of m43's lenses come close and beat the Sigma 60mm. On Sony's side, you won't find any that beat it, and very few that actually get close to the sharpness of that lens.

Here are a few real world examples as to why you cannot use DXO sharpness numbers across platforms.

Real world scenario 1: Canon 6D with Canon 17-40mm F4: Sharpness score: 14MP /// Olympus E-M1 with Olympus 12-40mm f2.8: Sharpness score: 9MP

Now, here are actual real world photos with those setups:

http://www.43rumors.com/full-frame-vs-micro-43-revisited-with-pro-olympus-lens-guest-post-by-chris-corradino/

Clearly, the Oly looks MUCH sharper. So why the big number discrepency: more MP + larger pixels will give you a higher number here, but it doesn't actually give you an accurate representation of the quality of those extra numbers. So essentially, you have more megapixels, but all you've really done is enlarged a slightly blurry image.

Another test via DXO: Nikon D810 with Nikon 24mm f1.4: Sharpness score: 23MP /// Panasonic 12mm f1.4 (no dxo score, but its impossible to get anywhere near 23MP sharpness. Let's give it the benefit of the doubt and match it to the Nocticron: 13MP):

Now some real world corner performance at infinity (really important for landscape lenses): Nikon performance in the corners at f2.0 (scroll to the bottom of the link to see the Nikon 24mm f1.4 at f2.0): http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_24mm_f1-8G_ED/sharpness.shtml

Panasonic 12mm f1.4 corner performance at near infinity:http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Leica_DG_Summilux_12mm_f1-4_H-X012/sharpness.shtml

It is clear as day that DXO would rate all the 3 24mm FF lenses higher than the Panasonic 12mm even though all 3 of them cannot in any way touch the corner performance of the Panasonic 12mm... not until they get to F4 can they compete. And I guarantee the DXO sharpness difference will be at least 10MP, but it becomes one of those situations where you have to ask yourself: Am I gonna believe DXO numbers, or my lying eyes?

This isn't to say all m43's lenses are better than FF or whatever... but it is to show you that DXO numbers do not play out in the real world when you are trying to compare across platforms. They do work to compare lenses within the same platform though.