Considering 4:3, but have some questions about IQ

Yep, you got it! Yes, there is an advantage to a larger sensor in DR and noise at higher ISOs. You just have to figure out of the difference between say, APS-C and m43's potential IQ is worth any of the other sacrifices, and you have to weigh the fact that the Sony lenses (the ones that aren't super expensive FF ones) do a complete disservice to their sensor, and in many ways can give results that end up being worse... even with the larger sensor.

I was originally looking into the A6000 and the Fuji XE-2 to replace my Nikon DSLR a few years ago. Went to a camera store tried them out, and decided to check out the super little E-M10 on the shelf as well. The XE-2 had very sluggish AF, the A6000 and I just never got along ergonomically (it also feels like its price) and neither had a touchscreen. Then I used the E-M10 and just felt right at home with its ergonomics. Sure, the Fuji would offer more potential IQ, but at the end of the day, I want to also enjoy the camera I'm shooting with moreso than worrying about squeezing every last drop of IQ I can from an image. That's why I went home with the E-M10. Everyone is different though, and the best thing to do is actually try out the m43's camera you are interested in and see if it jives with you.

curiosifly wrote:

So, is it true that pan 14 140 with gx85 will yield image with finer detail than sel 18 200 with a6000? After resolution difference is taken into consideration ? Thanks.

That Sony lens is sort of a dog... 7MP sharpness on an A6000 is pretty poor... not even 50% the performance of the Sigma 60mm f2.8 on the A6000. The Panasonic scores the same 7MP... but on a 16MP EPL5 haha! Looks to be 70% the performance of the Sigma 60mm f2.8.

curiosifly wrote:

Bhima78 wrote:

curiosifly wrote:

So, is it true that pan 14 140 with gx85 will yield image with finer detail than sel 18 200 with a6000? After resolution difference is taken into consideration ? Thanks.

That Sony lens is sort of a dog... 7MP sharpness on an A6000 is pretty poor... not even 50% the performance of the Sigma 60mm f2.8 on the A6000. The Panasonic scores the same 7MP... but on a 16MP EPL5 haha! Looks to be 70% the performance of the Sigma 60mm f2.8.

I am a little confused, sorry. Does that 7 mp mean the final image's effective resolution after combining lens and sensor? If that's the case, it means the two systems are equivalent in final result? Sorry if my question is too naive. Just started to understand lens metrics.

TBH, I'm not sure exactly what the metric means, but I am assuming it means: when shooting an MTF chart, this lens can make out fine lines up to 7MP using this specific camera. But even that doesn't really square with reality. As I have posted numerous examples of higher DXO sharpness numbers not resulting in actual real world sharpness increases over other lenses for different formats. Its why I've given up trying to use DXO to compare lenses and cameras of different formats and just stick to using it to determine how good a lens is within a format, but also buttress that assumption with real world examples.

Before you swtich, it would be a good thing to download RAW files from some websites (dpreview, photography blog,...) and play with them in your favorite RAW converter.

It will prevent you to have too high expectations and be dissapointed if your new camera don't meet them.

If IQ is up to your personal standards, then go with m4/3. It's a great and mature system where you can find all the lenses you need and even more. Especially compared to Sony APS-C.

Good luck.

No, it is an out of the camera jpeg.

Nirurin wrote:

lescrane wrote:

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.

What do you think of the gx8 vs the gx85? These are the cameras I am looking at, leaning towards the GX85.

After my wife took away GX7 from me (a perfect match with her 14-140II on e-shutter) and leaving me with the good old GX1 (  ), I had long waited to upgrade it. G7 (no IBIS, and I prefer range finder style more than mini-dslr) and later GX8 were once on my wishing list. However, the size of GX8 was always my problem on using M43. During the time passing without new model in sight, the size and weight issue of GX8 was fading. Just before my final decision to go for GX8, launching of GX85, indeed the GX7 Mark II, had been my final goal.

Not to mention the small and lighter weight, GX85 has most features GX8 has, but absent from GX7 (Dual IS, DFD, Post Focus, 4K video and Photo). In fact, GX85 has better IBIS than GX8, which also support video as well. GX85's new shutter does minimize shutter shock. I suppose it might be the best solution recently in M43 land towards shutter shock (if it bother you).

Unless you need the weatherproof feature of GX8 (you need the limited weatherproof lenses for the effect), IMHO there is not much point to go for GX8. Or if you can wait, may be GX9....

Serguei Palto wrote:

The correctly measured properties of a lens can not depend on a camera body or the other equipment used with the lens.

A lens test in isolation is pretty useless , as far as I am aware we all use a lens mounted on a camera to take our photos . So the only test that makes any sense is indeed a "system" test. Lenses for m43 need to have double the resolution just to compete with a FF cameras assuming the same MP count , given that we are stuck at 16/20mp and FF has had 36mp for a number of years and more recently 42 and 50mp the comparative results are hardly surprising , well except to some members of the m43 fan club.

See this picture

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57931298

and camera and lens choice depends on how big a print you want to produce, perhaps.

I only print A3 and hardly ever crop as I use zoom lenses.

Peter Del

curiosifly wrote:

Bhima78 wrote:

curiosifly wrote:

So, is it true that pan 14 140 with gx85 will yield image with finer detail than sel 18 200 with a6000? After resolution difference is taken into consideration ? Thanks.

That Sony lens is sort of a dog... 7MP sharpness on an A6000 is pretty poor... not even 50% the performance of the Sigma 60mm f2.8 on the A6000. The Panasonic scores the same 7MP... but on a 16MP EPL5 haha! Looks to be 70% the performance of the Sigma 60mm f2.8.

I am a little confused, sorry. Does that 7 mp mean the final image's effective resolution after combining lens and sensor?

I don't think anyone truly knows. It's just a score. They have their own criteria and a formula for calculating it, and you get this number as a result. Without matching it with actual real world photos, it's hard to tell what the number actually means. And it looks like smaller sensors always have smaller scores, even if the sensor resolution is the same.

If that's the case, it means the two systems are equivalent in final result?

I think that is the claim DxO makes. Does it actually reflect reality is another matter. You can read up on the idea behind those scores on their website .

Sorry if my question is too naive. Just started to understand lens metrics.

Don't get too caught up with those numbers. They can be useful sometimes, but in reality, don't tell you much about the lens.

bluevellet wrote:

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.

There's the Kowa Prominar 8.5mm f2.8. Supposedly excellent.

M4/3 also has two excellent ultra-wide 7-14mm zooms; the Olympus f2.8 and Panasonic f4. I think these have helped quiet the grumbling about the lack ultra-wide rectilinear primes. I thought about getting a Kowa 8.5mm, but couldn't really justify it because I have the 7-14mm f4.

Serguei Palto wrote:

samtheman2014 wrote:

Serguei Palto wrote:

The correctly measured properties of a lens can not depend on a camera body or the other equipment used with the lens.

A lens test in isolation is pretty useless , as far as I am aware we all use a lens mounted on a camera to take our photos . So the only test that makes any sense is indeed a "system" test. Lenses for m43 need to have double the resolution just to compete with a FF cameras assuming the same MP count , given that we are stuck at 16/20mp and FF has had 36mp for a number of years and more recently 42 and 50mp the comparative results are hardly surprising , well except to some members of the m43 fan club.

Invalid point of view.

If you know true properties of a lens then you know the best possible performance on any camera including that which will be produced in future.

The true properties of the lens are like a passport of a human. The data in the passport do not depend on a policemen who checks them, but provide a valuable information on a human.

With true data in the lens "passport" you can easily compare the optical quality of a lens independently on a camera platform it is produced for. One can also easily predict the best performance of an arbitrary system (camera+lens) with an arbitrary number of Mps on a sensor.

There is a concept of the ideal lens (which, of course, is independent on a system platform), and the true optical quality of a lens must be estimated on the basis of how large is the difference between the ideal and a real lens.

Contrary, if you measured just a performance of a particular system (body+lens) you can tell nothing on the true lens performance. As soon as a new camera bodies will be produced, all the data you measured for a particular body-lens system become just a garbage. A bright example are the data measured on the camera with the shutter shock.

The power of the concept of the interchangeable lens cameras is that lenses you bought can be used in future cameras. It is why only the true lens properties are valuable.

Again I take photos by mounting lens on camera as I suspect do you , DXO updates all it's lens tests to new bodies in each format { eventually } so you can see how a given lens will work on your respective camera. Photography is camera + lens

Bhima78 wrote:

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/

That test is comically badly done , the fact that you need to post such poor examples as "proof" rather says it all

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

A FF lens at F/2.0 is the same as shooting a 12mm F/1.0 lens on m43 , same AOV, same DOF and same total light gathered . Speaking as FF and m43 system user I would love to see an example where the very extreme corners of an 24mm @ F/2 on FF or 12mm @ F/1.0 is really important for landscape" do post one I would love to see it

Just for a visual aid this is the area being considered on the 24mm at F1.8 , I darkened the rest of the image so that the " really important" part of the image could be easier seen Perhaps you could show me a m43 12mm at f/0.9 with better results.

I do not think that there is a 12mm F/0.9 lens available though if the extreme corner performance of the voightlander 10.5mm F/0.95 wide open are anything to go by I would not hold out much hope

http://www.lenstip.com/445.11-Lens_review-Voigtlander_Nokton_10.5_mm_f_0.95_Summary.html

• weak image quality on the edge of the field of view,
• huge vignetting,
• monstrous coma,
• high astigmatism,
• visible spherical aberration,
• significant field curvature,
• ugly out of focus areas,
• field of view over two degrees narrower than stated in the specifications,
• weak price/optics quality ratio.

We hereby inform that an experiment entitled “ultra fast ultra wide-angle lens” ended with a failure. Nothing to add…