Considering 4:3, but have some questions about IQ

samtheman2014 wrote:

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

Not sure what is comical about it. The guy took a shot with a 6D, then for the fun of it, he decided to see how his new EM1 with the 12-40 would fare against his older setup. Took the photo and there are the results.

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

Night sky astro photography focused to infinity with aperture wide open could be very useful to keep ISO's lower and not get star trails.

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

Here, since you are continuing to play the "where is the 12mm f0.9 lens", I'll even move the goalposts for you so I can try and fit the facts to your narrative:

Yellow is APS-C crop corner  //// Orange is FF crop corner

Even the FX corner at F4 is softer than the real world result at infinity of the Panasonic 12mm f1.4 AT f1.4:

PL12 at F1.4 and F2

No need to ask about an f0.9 lens when, even at APS-C crop focused near infinity, f1.8 on these lenses isn't very good.

Would it matter in broad daylight? Likely not at all because you'd just stop the FF lens to F8 or F11. But that isn't the point/context of my original discussion. The context was narrowly focused on showing that DXO sharpness numbers cannot be matched across platforms. If so, you would obviously see different results than what we are seeing here.

Astrotripper said it best in less words, you can refer to his post in this thread.

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…

-- hide signature --

The rose of all the world is not for me. I want for my part
Only the little white rose of Scotland
That smells sharp and sweet—and breaks the heart.
:Hugh MacDiarmid

Between APS-C and 4:3, there is little to no compromise in IQ.  I'd choose 4:3 every time given the choice.  It is the best balance of size and weight, especially now that there are  multiple Panaleica's and Olympus f1.2's coming.

You said nothing about your intended use of the camera system.

For my uses (macro/closeup, wildlife, walking around nd video) , m43 gear is the best fit.  What's best for you might be different.  Until you understand your own needs and evaluate each system in those terms, you are unlikely to make the right choice.

I've found the Panasonic 14-140ii to be excellent as a general purpose walking around lens.  Good for video too.  Better than the zoom lenses I used with Nikon gear.

alcelc wrote:

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....

Having spent a week with each I'd go with the GX8.  I prefer the larger body as I found the controls easier.  Like the EVF and rear screen more on gx8.  In terms of IQ I see no difference.

TN Args wrote:

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.

Agreed. DxO lens ratings are totally bogus because they rely in large part on the camera the lenses are tested on.  They are best ignored.  Sites like Lenstip are much more reliable.

However, DxO sharpness ratings can be useful if you know how to interpret them.  Their "virtual megapixel" sharpness ratings, or whatever they call them, represent the efficiency of a lens in delivering the resolution of the sensor.  That's why most APS-C and full-frame lenses have higher ratings: They're being tested on cameras with more megapixels.

For example, that Sony 55-210 that has a 13 Mpx sharpness rating is only delivering 54% of the Sony sensor's 24 megapixels.  But the Olympus 14-150, with a 10 Mpx rating, is delivering 62.5% of the M43 camera's megapixels of resolution.

One of the highest rated M43 lenses, the Oly 75mm f/1.8, gets a 13 sharpness rating at DxO, which means it's delivering a whopping 81.25% of the M43 camera's megapixels.  For the Sony 55-210 to have the same 13 rating is patently absurd.

I've owned both.  Everyone agrees that the Oly 75 is one of the sharpest lenses ever made, in any format, and the Sony 55-210 was blown out of the water by the lowly Oly 40-150 f/4-5.6 zoom.

I've had both systems and I ended up selling my a6000 and lenses because my Oly E-M5 and lenses just made better photos.  And I did LOTS of side-by-side comparisons before coming to that decision.  I actually wanted the Sony to win, because I loved the AF system and great sensor, but the lens selection was the deciding factor.

FingerPainter wrote:

DXO numbers do work in cross-platform comparisons.

It shouldn't matter to OP if there are lenses that perform better on m43 than the 60mm SIgma on m43. It matters if there are lenses that perform better on m43 than the 60mm Sigma on an a6000, and there aren't. OP's trying to get the sharpest images, not the sharpest lens.

Assuming you are right (I'm not gonna argue either way), I think that puts the Sony system in a bad light. As in, poor value for money, and just simply unrealised potential.

I mean, it looks like the only way to get sharper photos with A6000, is to use primes. Because scores for Sony zooms are pretty much the same as for E-M1 with Panasonic and Olympus zooms. That kinda sucks, considering larger, higher resolution APS-C sensor. And even with primes, the advantage is not as big as one would hope. Just look at scores for lenses on Nikon D5300. Why is there such a big difference in scores between two APS-C cameras with almost identical sensor?

So if those scores can be trusted, then the take away is that there's very little advantage, if any at all, with going the A6000 route. A bit more DoF control and maybe half a stop or so on sensor performance side, that's it. Both easily negated by using better lenses on MFT side, or possibly by future cameras with higher res sensors. I think one would expect to get more when going with a larger format (that's still possible if you go with Nikon DX for example, at least according to DxO).

So you might be right looking at it this way. But I think that what Bhima78 showed is that we should expect A6000 scores to be about 5-6 P-Mpix higher than for similar MFT lenses (after all, the sensor does have 50% more pixels). And that's simply not the case. And the difference of 1 P-Mpix is probably insignificant, seeing how two versions of Panasonic 20/1.7 have different scores (it's the same lens, optically).

Hugh J 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.

You're thinking of jumping ship based on the performance of cheap kit zooms. That's sort of like trying to draw conclusions between a Porsche and a Ferrari based on driving each car through a neighborhood side street at 25 mph.

I'm partly wondering if I am misinterpreting the results of these tests somehow.

Yes -- you're looking at results that were arrived at through lab testing. In the strictly controlled environment of a lab, numbers are arrived at which are otherwise invisible and inconsequential in actual real world usage. This is because lab tests, when done properly, are designed to eliminate as many variables as possible.

The irony is that the more variables that are eliminated (the better the lab test) the less relevant to the real world it is, because the real world is full of variable

Mr. Sony.... if you can cite any decent Sony E mount zoom under 500.00 I'll jump back on the ship.  Or even one under 1000. 00?

The Sony e lens choices are pathetic.  Even the zeiss branded lenses are not quite the Ferraris or Porsche.  I'm going by reviews and hands on experience.   The oly and panasonic have more options value and IQ at this point.

FingerPainter wrote:

Astrotripper wrote:

FingerPainter wrote:

DXO numbers do work in cross-platform comparisons.

Assuming you are right (I'm not gonna argue either way), I think that puts the Sony system in a bad light. As in, poor value for money, and just simply unrealised potential.

An a6000 with a Sigma 60mm lens costs $790 at B&H today. It gets 60% better PMP than an E-M1 with the Sigma 60mm, a combnation which costs $1140. so I'm not seeing the poor value you claim in the Sony combination.

It's highly unlikely that someone would only get that single lens for their a6000. Although I bet the new Sigma 30/1.4 will join the ranks at the top. Still, that's a very limited selection of lenses that can utilize the advantage of larger, higher res sensor.

I mean, it looks like the only way to get sharper photos with A6000, is to use primes. Because scores for Sony zooms are pretty much the same as for E-M1 with Panasonic and Olympus zooms. That kinda sucks, considering larger, higher resolution APS-C sensor.

Really? The FE 70-200mm f/4 gets similar results on an a6000 as the 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO on an E-M1, and the Sony combination costs $350 less.

Sure, but why buy an APS-C camera if you need to buy large and expensive FE glass to utilize it's full potential?

The Sony 18-200m on a6000 is sharper, faster and less expensive than M.Zuiko 14-150 II on E-M1.

The difference in marginal. And the Olympus on the other hand, is weather sealed. And Panasonic 14-140 is better. No matter how you slice it, zooms on a6000 don't look good compared to Micro 4/3.

Panasonic 7-14 > Sony E 10-18

Olympus 12-40/2.8 > Sony E 16-70/4

Olympus 14-42 kit lens = Sony 16-70 kit lens

The above should not be true, considering the difference in sensor size and resolution.

Where is this 5-6 P-Mpix advantage that a6000 should have over 16mp MFT camera? It's nowhere to be found. The scores are mostly within 1 P-Mpix of each other, which I don't think is enough to declare one a definitive winner.

However, I d agree that most of the earlier Sony E-mount zooms were underwhelming

And the problem is that it's almost all there is. Sony stopped making lenses for APS-C E-mount almost three years ago. All you can hope for now is more (and better) FE lenses.

And even with primes, the advantage is not as big as one would hope. Just look at scores for lenses on Nikon D5300. Why is there such a big difference in scores between two APS-C cameras with almost identical sensor?

Sony's original design goal was small and light-weight, not high IQ. Their latest FE lenses have changed that direction.

And that's the thing, you need to buy FE glass to get the most out of your APS-C camera. Kinda defeats the purpose of a compact system that delivers high IQ. Why not just go for A7? The first generation was not much bigger than a6000. And now you will truly have an advantage in image quality. And there are some lenses that make it a very nice, compact kit, even by APS-C standards.

Sony's APS-C seems like an unnecessary compromise that you take because you can't afford to go for FE. It makes up for it by being cheap and offering nice feature set and good AF system. But it doesn't offer the IQ advantage that one would expect to get. That's my whole argument.

So if those scores can be trusted, then the take away is that there's very little advantage, if any at all, with going the A6000 route.

There actually seems to be a price advantage going the a6000 route.

Of course, mid-level camera will always be cheaper than high-end model. And sorry, but robust AF does not make a6000 a competitor for cameras like E-M1, GH4 or GX8. Not the same league.

A bit more DoF control and maybe half a stop or so on sensor performance side, that's it.

And the cost of bodies.

Only if you accept that E-M1 and a6000 are the only bodies on the market. A6300 is very expensive and doesn't seem to be as feature packed as MFT cameras of similar price. And you can get cheaper MFT bodies that are more capable by a lot of metrics than the cheapo a6000.

But yeah, there isn't a very big IQ advantage to an a6000 over m43.

Both easily negated by using better lenses on MFT side,

Well, I'm not sure that is true. Which m43 lenses do you have in mind for a budget-conscious purchaser, that perform better on m43 bodies as their E-mount counterparts on an a6000.

Usually not on a budget, really fast glass is usually very expensive. Chasing IQ is unfortunately costly, regardless of how you go on about it. From what I see, within reason, there's 35/1.8 vs 25/1.4, 16-70/4 vs 12-40/2.8 or 12-35/2.8, 70-200/4 vs 40-150/2.8.

or possibly by future cameras with higher res sensors.

We're just beginning to see 20MP m43 sensors. It is goinh to be a while before we see 24MP.

Yep, my bet is at least three years before we see any moves in this regard. Unless Panasonic will try to push 8K into consumer cameras, which I do not believe will happen. Too bad DxO did not test any lenses on PEN-F yet, it would be interesting to see if there is any difference. I kinda have a hunch that we're entering a territory of diminishing returns.

My bet is that in the mean time, Olympus will try to improve the High Res mode, making it usable in more scenarios.

In the mean time, I wouldn't be surprised to see 28MP and maybe 30-32MP APS-C sensors.

I don't think those will show up in Sony E bodies anytime soon, either. When will we see next prosumer APS-C E-mount body? 2-3 years from now? And I doubt Sony would put such a sensor in entry-level model. But it's Sony, anything can happen, so I guess we'll see.

I think one would expect to get more when going with a larger format (that's still possible if you go with Nikon DX for example, at least according to DxO).

Both a Nikon DX camer or an a6000 give you more. It's just differenr types of "more". The Sony gives you a smaller size than an E-M1, sometimes with that 1/2 stop advantage you mentioned, and usually sharper images, at a lower price but with worse handling. The Nikon DX cameras more fully realize the potential of APS-C in a larger, more expensive package.

Not sure about the expensive part. Bigger competition in lens market usually means more affordable lenses. And there's a nice selection of decently priced Nikon bodies as well. But DX has the same problem as Sony E, you are usually forced to use larger, more expensive FF lenses, at least when you want a dedicated prime.

M43 is always compared with the most expensive bodies yet obviously Sony can just get by with a A6000, the A6300 or even the A7RII are obviously not to be mentionned.

Somehow someone looking at an A6000 or even A5100 would never be interested in a GM1/5 or EPL6/7. It has to be em1 or gh4.

Having read all of your posts in this thread, I'm not sure what you are looking for.  Personally I would advise you to look at lenses first and bodies second.  However you mention astrophotography and that needs both the right lenses and a body with the right capabilities.  It's not my interest but there is a current thread on the Sony FF forum discussing it.

Otherwise almost any of the cameras you mention can do a good job.  I have been tempted by an A6000 but the lens selection is not exciting compared to MFT.  Of course with an EM1, I can use almost anything somehow.

Good luck with the choice.  My choices have led me in some odd directions!

Andrew

Before everything else, I've snooped into your galley, and based on your photos, I believe that M43 will be perfect match to your quest of IQ.

You can sometimes get the EM1 and 12-40 as a kit.  Other than the Panny 12-32, I wouldn't buy a real "kit" lens.

Can't advise on Panny bodies, since I need PDAF.

Andrew

Nirurin wrote:

s_grins wrote:

Before everything else, I've snooped into your galley, and based on your photos, I believe that M43 will be perfect match to your quest of IQ.

Ahha! I just said I'd try and link my Flickr, forgetting I had a few photos on here too. Think they're mostly macros maybe but still. Good thinking that man.

Ahha! Macros!

Here you can go with legacy macro lenses. They are much cheaper than proprietary lenses, and many of them deliver outstanding images. The rest is for you, and system does not play much.

I often do macros with my little P&S camera