Considering 4:3, but have some questions about IQ

By the way, attached is what I am referring to when comparing Sony and Panasonic.

IAstrotripper wrote:

curiosifly wrote:

Em, after following this long thread, I went back to DXO and found something more difficult to understand.

For example, the Pana Leica 42.5 F1.2 scored merely 6 MP on GX7

Yeah, famous GX7 resolution scores

As the guys at Lenstip found out, GX7 is affected by shutter shock. But unlike other cameras, SS on GX7 probably affects all lenses, since they measured noticeable drop in resolution with lenses that normally are not affected by this phenomena. Photos taken with electronic shutter were noticeably sharper. Conclusion: shutter-shock affecting IBIS mechanism.

Now, some GX7 users claim that they do not see this phenomenon on their cameras, suggesting that the problem only affected some samples of that camera. Maybe there were issues with QC. Maybe the first production batch was messed up? Maybe the cameras they got for testing were not final production versions? Who knows, we can only speculate.

but 13 MP on Olympus EPL-6 (and 12 MP on Olympus EM1). Does that mean the score could only be compared when mounting on exactly the same camera, or does that mean Olympus camera is so much better than Panasonic in actual resolution?

Aside from the mess with GX7, Olympus bodies score better in terms of resolution, because they have no AA filter (or it's very weak). On Panasonic side, only the newest GX80/85 got rid of AA filter.

As for the impact of this filter on resolution scores, that basically means that 20mp with AA filter will score very similar to 16mp without a filter.

Thank you for the explanation. This makes the new GX85 more attempting then

There are some good primes for it, though. So if you're a prime guy, there's an IQ advantage for you to get out of it. Just forget about zooms.

I think most of the time I'll use prime. But I want a zoom when travel. Despite the tons of wonderful MFT lenses, the only one that interests me is the Panasonic 14 140 II. When comparing with Sony's 18 200 LE, I can see I will greatly appreciate it's size and weight advantage when travel. For primes, I think Sony's 35 and 50 F1.8 OSS will serve me well so I do not see much advantage by using MFT. I guess if I can conclude that GX85 with prime lens at the same price range is equal to A6300 with prime lens, and GX85's AF-C and tracking is close to what A6300's offering, I will choose GX85 then. Otherwise, I may choose A6300 and pick a ZS100 for travel.

Astrotripper wrote:

curiosifly wrote:

I think most of the time I'll use prime. But I want a zoom when travel. Despite the tons of wonderful MFT lenses, the only one that interests me is the Panasonic 14 140 II.

For what it's worth, it's got the reputation of the best superzoom for MFT, and one of the best in general. But it is very prone to shutter-shock. But not with the new shutter mechanism of GX80/85. Which means it's a perfect match for that camera.

When comparing with Sony's 18 200 LE, I can see I will greatly appreciate it's size and weight advantage when travel. For primes, I think Sony's 35 and 50 F1.8 OSS will serve me well so I do not see much advantage by using MFT. I guess if I can conclude that GX85 with prime lens at the same price range is equal to A6300 with prime lens, and GX85's AF-C and tracking is close to what A6300's offering

To be honest, I would expect A6300 to outperform GX85. At least at that price tag, and with so much hype surrounding it's PDAF based AF system, it really should. GX85, on it's side, uses Panasonic's DFD which gives it a boost in AF performance when used with Panasonic lenses. But is it as good as A6300?

But as always, there's a catch

AF-C performance greatly depends on the lens. I remember reading a comparison of AF performance for action on A6000 with two different lenses. One was the f/4 premium zoom (16-70 if I recall, or maybe 70-200?), the other was a cheap consumer telephoto (55-210 if I recall correctly). And while the premium lens performed admirably, the consumer tele zoom was pretty much as useless as my E-M10 with the cheapo 40-150. Wish I'd bookmarked it. It was a blog post, the guy did a test on a running dog with both those lenses and unfortunately, I can't find it now.

Em, thank you very much again, especially on the tip of lens's impact on AF. I've watched a video by thecamerastore when they compared GH4, EM1, XT10 and A6000. It seems that (at least for single point AFC) they think GH4 performs the best. The lens used for GH4 is 35-100 F2.8 and for A6000 is 70-200 F4. They use F4 on both lens so MFT is benefited by its larger DOF. But anyway, that's what makes me hope that Panasonic's DFD is close to Sony's PDAF offering. I wish there could be more tests on AF between GX85 and A6300. So far the youtube reviews I could find all focus on 4K video comparison which I don't care at all.

curiosifly wrote:

Astrotripper wrote:

curiosifly wrote:

I think most of the time I'll use prime. But I want a zoom when travel. Despite the tons of wonderful MFT lenses, the only one that interests me is the Panasonic 14 140 II.

For what it's worth, it's got the reputation of the best superzoom for MFT, and one of the best in general. But it is very prone to shutter-shock. But not with the new shutter mechanism of GX80/85. Which means it's a perfect match for that camera.

When comparing with Sony's 18 200 LE, I can see I will greatly appreciate it's size and weight advantage when travel. For primes, I think Sony's 35 and 50 F1.8 OSS will serve me well so I do not see much advantage by using MFT. I guess if I can conclude that GX85 with prime lens at the same price range is equal to A6300 with prime lens, and GX85's AF-C and tracking is close to what A6300's offering

To be honest, I would expect A6300 to outperform GX85. At least at that price tag, and with so much hype surrounding it's PDAF based AF system, it really should. GX85, on it's side, uses Panasonic's DFD which gives it a boost in AF performance when used with Panasonic lenses. But is it as good as A6300?

But as always, there's a catch

AF-C performance greatly depends on the lens. I remember reading a comparison of AF performance for action on A6000 with two different lenses. One was the f/4 premium zoom (16-70 if I recall, or maybe 70-200?), the other was a cheap consumer telephoto (55-210 if I recall correctly). And while the premium lens performed admirably, the consumer tele zoom was pretty much as useless as my E-M10 with the cheapo 40-150. Wish I'd bookmarked it. It was a blog post, the guy did a test on a running dog with both those lenses and unfortunately, I can't find it now.

Em, thank you very much again, especially on the tip of lens's impact on AF. I've watched a video by thecamerastore when they compared GH4, EM1, XT10 and A6000. It seems that (at least for single point AFC) they think GH4 performs the best. The lens used for GH4 is 35-100 F2.8 and for A6000 is 70-200 F4. They use F4 on both lens so MFT is benefited by its larger DOF. But anyway, that's what makes me hope that Panasonic's DFD is close to Sony's PDAF offering. I wish there could be more tests on AF between GX85 and A6300. So far the youtube reviews I could find all focus on 4K video comparison which I don't care at all.

Well I still have the a6000, and my GX85 turned up in the post today, so I might be able to run some kind of test between those... but I'm not sure how I would go about it. If you give me an idea I can do my best.

Nirurin wrote:

curiosifly wrote:

Astrotripper wrote:

curiosifly wrote:

I think most of the time I'll use prime. But I want a zoom when travel. Despite the tons of wonderful MFT lenses, the only one that interests me is the Panasonic 14 140 II.

For what it's worth, it's got the reputation of the best superzoom for MFT, and one of the best in general. But it is very prone to shutter-shock. But not with the new shutter mechanism of GX80/85. Which means it's a perfect match for that camera.

When comparing with Sony's 18 200 LE, I can see I will greatly appreciate it's size and weight advantage when travel. For primes, I think Sony's 35 and 50 F1.8 OSS will serve me well so I do not see much advantage by using MFT. I guess if I can conclude that GX85 with prime lens at the same price range is equal to A6300 with prime lens, and GX85's AF-C and tracking is close to what A6300's offering

To be honest, I would expect A6300 to outperform GX85. At least at that price tag, and with so much hype surrounding it's PDAF based AF system, it really should. GX85, on it's side, uses Panasonic's DFD which gives it a boost in AF performance when used with Panasonic lenses. But is it as good as A6300?

But as always, there's a catch

AF-C performance greatly depends on the lens. I remember reading a comparison of AF performance for action on A6000 with two different lenses. One was the f/4 premium zoom (16-70 if I recall, or maybe 70-200?), the other was a cheap consumer telephoto (55-210 if I recall correctly). And while the premium lens performed admirably, the consumer tele zoom was pretty much as useless as my E-M10 with the cheapo 40-150. Wish I'd bookmarked it. It was a blog post, the guy did a test on a running dog with both those lenses and unfortunately, I can't find it now.

Em, thank you very much again, especially on the tip of lens's impact on AF. I've watched a video by thecamerastore when they compared GH4, EM1, XT10 and A6000. It seems that (at least for single point AFC) they think GH4 performs the best. The lens used for GH4 is 35-100 F2.8 and for A6000 is 70-200 F4. They use F4 on both lens so MFT is benefited by its larger DOF. But anyway, that's what makes me hope that Panasonic's DFD is close to Sony's PDAF offering. I wish there could be more tests on AF between GX85 and A6300. So far the youtube reviews I could find all focus on 4K video comparison which I don't care at all.

Well I still have the a6000, and my GX85 turned up in the post today, so I might be able to run some kind of test between those... but I'm not sure how I would go about it. If you give me an idea I can do my best.

Wow, that's very kind of you! I don't know how to do a scientific test neither. Below is a youtube comparison between A6300 and Canon 80D which I find informative.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoNRXWFTFa4

By no means am I asking you to do the same tests. Do whatever you like if yourself is interested in the comparison. Any feedback is really appreciated.

I myself use Panasonic LX100 which also has DFD technology. Although it is way better than the cameras I've tried with conventional CDAF, I find I would prefer if there's something even better without going for bulky dSLRs.  Here is something I'm not 100% satisfied with my LX100's AF, but I admit I myself may deserve more blame than the camera.

My main subject is my toddler. I like to take pictures of him when he's running towards me or when he's swinging. I usually set my camera to 75 mm (35 mm equivalent) and F2.8 for shallow DOF. Sometimes I use center point AFC, sometimes lock on AF, and sometimes face detection AFC for those situations and I usually shoot at 6 fps. I don't have a statistical count of rate of in good focus frames. But I guess it would be around 50~60% (would be lower if I look at 100%). When my subject gets close to me, (ex. when it becomes half body shot), then most of the frames will be out of focus.

When my subject is strong back lit (face in very dark shadow), my LX100 would usually have trouble AF. I'm curious to see if A6000 would be better or worse under dim light. Supposedly, it is rated only for -1 eV and LX100 is rated for -4 eV, so maybe I shouldn't expect A6000 to perform better?

By the way, another big selling of GX85 vs. A6000/A6300 is it's touch screen and handling in general. As an experienced A6000 user, I'm interested in knowing how much difference in shooting experience do you feel, especially when trying to focus on moving subjects. Enjoy your new camera!

JosephScha wrote:

There are two versions of the Panasonic 14-140. The second one is f/3.5 minimum. Be sure you are checking the new version.

And, please check the Leica branded 25mm f/1.4. Oly has a similar lens, I happen to own Panasonic.

If you really want to see high DXO marks don't look at approximately $500 10x zoom and why compare it to much smaller zoom range from Sony?

Despite the smaller zoom range, from what I have seen from reviews the new 14-140mm seems to be better than both the 16-50 and the 55-210, in a smaller and lighter package too. Though I plan to run my own tests. If it is at least about the same, I'll see it as a victory simply because it's one lens doing the job of two!

The 14-140 will just be my walkabout lens. I plan to get a seperate macro lens, as well as one fast prime for indoor and evening work... not sure which yet, as I do want the 12mm 2.0 rokinon for night sky pictures, but I think it'll be too wide angle for indoor work.

Nirurin wrote:

E-M5II + 7-14 f/2.8 PRO: $2,100. GX8 + Pany 7-14 f/4: $1,900. a6000 + 10-18 f/4: $$1,300

a6300 + 10-18 f/4: $2200 which to me is more of a comparison to the E-M5ii, not sure why you're comparing it to a camera that's been replace. Of course the a6000 will be cheap, its now pretty old.

I'm comparing to the a6000 because that is the camera you mentioned in our OP. You did not mention the a6300 there. The a6000 is 5 months newer than the E-M1 to which I have been comparing it.

Also, it might just be american prices, but my pricing for the a6000+10-18f4 comes up a lot closer to $1700, about the same as it costs to get a brand new gx85 + 7-14 f/4.

But that may just be because sony prices are cheaper where you are, I know these things vary a lot.

All prices cited by me in this thread have been those listed on the B&H website on the day of the posting, rounded to the nearest multiple of $5. a6000 body only was $550.

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

E-M1 + Olympus 12-40 f/2.8 PRO: $1,800. GX8 + 12-35mm f/2.8: $2,000. a6000 + Sony 16-70: $1,550.

Again, for me, a6000 is closer to $1700. But from what I can tell, the 12-32 kit lens is already very good for panasonic. And of course the more relevant a6300 is more like $2300.

a6300 + Sony 16-70: $1,995 on B&H today. IDK where you are getting these inflated prices for Sony equipment.

Also they're pretty different lenses... though I guess the 16-70 has better range, while the 12-35 is better for low light.

In terms of noise, DOF control and diffraction blur, the 12-35 is < 1/3 stop better, so effectively no difference.

Most camera makers have lenses at different quality levels. This is true for Oly, Pany and Sony. You are comparing top quality Oly and Pany lenses to less-than-top quality Sony lenses. As you can see, from the price comparisons for the lenses you cited, to get higher sharpness on an m43 body, you need to pay a higher price, and whe you get similar quality you pay a simialr price. I didn't bother to check weights, but I wouldn't be surprised to see that the better m43 lenses weighed more than the poorer Sony lenses.

This is a little strange to me, as I think it's the first time I've ever seen someone argue that sony lenses were cheaper and better quality.

The Sony lenses are not better quality. Pretty much all the m43 lenses are better than their Sony counterparts. But when one adds in the effect of the higher resolution Sony sensors, the Sony system produces better images.

Usually the argument is that in order to get good lenses, you have to pay a fortune.

I think that the smaller imaging circle of the m43 lenses might make it a bit easier to make m43 lenses to the higher quality standard that they need to compete, given their inferior sensors.

The scores are mostly within 1 P-Mpix of each other, which I don't think is enough to declare one a definitive winner.

If they score about the same, but the Sony is several hundred dollars less expensive, isn't the Sony a value winner?

Part of the equation is that a lot of the MFT lenses are smaller and lighter, but still produce similar results.

Are they? Let look at the lenses you called out in this post.

Oly 7-14 f/2.8 PRO: 534g. Pany 7-14 f/4: 300g. Sony 10-18 f/4: 225g.

Oly 12-40 f/2.8 PRO: 382g. Pany 12-35mm f/2.8: 305g. Sony 16-70 f/4: 308g.

When you compare lenses of similar shooting envelope, you find that the higher quality of the m43 lenses comes at the cost of higher weight.

The difference in price here seems to be more like $100 at most

"At most"? No. "At least" would be closer to the truth. The difference in price between the Oly 7-14 f/2,8Pro and the Sony 10-18 is $450.

for most of these lenses though, and MFT seems to have lenses that are almost as good as the "pro" line, for a quarter of the cost.

They don't have the same shooting envelope.

The same price sony lenses are... generally seen as not very good. Though some people like them.

They generally aren't as good, but you have to evaluate the system IQ quality, not just the lens quality to address the IQ question you raised in the OP.

Only if you accept that E-M1 and a6000 are the only bodies on the market.

For some reason, that's what I thought OP was comparing.

Not the e-m1. The E-M10ii. Which is like $600 cheaper I think.

The E-M10II is the same price as an a6000, $350 less than an E-M1, and is less camera than the ones I have been using for the comparisons.

FingerPainter wrote:

Nirurin wrote:

E-M5II + 7-14 f/2.8 PRO: $2,100. GX8 + Pany 7-14 f/4: $1,900. a6000 + 10-18 f/4: $$1,300

a6300 + 10-18 f/4: $2200 which to me is more of a comparison to the E-M5ii, not sure why you're comparing it to a camera that's been replace. Of course the a6000 will be cheap, its now pretty old.

I'm comparing to the a6000 because that is the camera you mentioned in our OP. You did not mention the a6300 there. The a6000 is 5 months newer than the E-M1 to which I have been comparing it.

Also, it might just be american prices, but my pricing for the a6000+10-18f4 comes up a lot closer to $1700, about the same as it costs to get a brand new gx85 + 7-14 f/4.

But that may just be because sony prices are cheaper where you are, I know these things vary a lot.

All prices cited by me in this thread have been those listed on the B&H website on the day of the posting, rounded to the nearest multiple of $5. a6000 body only was $550.

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

E-M1 + Olympus 12-40 f/2.8 PRO: $1,800. GX8 + 12-35mm f/2.8: $2,000. a6000 + Sony 16-70: $1,550.

Again, for me, a6000 is closer to $1700. But from what I can tell, the 12-32 kit lens is already very good for panasonic. And of course the more relevant a6300 is more like $2300.

a6300 + Sony 16-70: $1,995 on B&H today. IDK where you are getting these inflated prices for Sony equipment.

Also they're pretty different lenses... though I guess the 16-70 has better range, while the 12-35 is better for low light.

In terms of noise, DOF control and diffraction blur, the 12-35 is < 1/3 stop better, so effectively no difference.

Most camera makers have lenses at different quality levels. This is true for Oly, Pany and Sony. You are comparing top quality Oly and Pany lenses to less-than-top quality Sony lenses. As you can see, from the price comparisons for the lenses you cited, to get higher sharpness on an m43 body, you need to pay a higher price, and whe you get similar quality you pay a simialr price. I didn't bother to check weights, but I wouldn't be surprised to see that the better m43 lenses weighed more than the poorer Sony lenses.

This is a little strange to me, as I think it's the first time I've ever seen someone argue that sony lenses were cheaper and better quality.

The Sony lenses are not better quality. Pretty much all the m43 lenses are better than their Sony counterparts. But when one adds in the effect of the higher resolution Sony sensors, the Sony system produces better images.

Usually the argument is that in order to get good lenses, you have to pay a fortune.

I think that the smaller imaging circle of the m43 lenses might make it a bit easier to make m43 lenses to the higher quality standard that they need to compete, given their inferior sensors.

The scores are mostly within 1 P-Mpix of each other, which I don't think is enough to declare one a definitive winner.

If they score about the same, but the Sony is several hundred dollars less expensive, isn't the Sony a value winner?

Part of the equation is that a lot of the MFT lenses are smaller and lighter, but still produce similar results.

Are they? Let look at the lenses you called out in this post.

Oly 7-14 f/2.8 PRO: 534g. Pany 7-14 f/4: 300g. Sony 10-18 f/4: 225g.

Oly 12-40 f/2.8 PRO: 382g. Pany 12-35mm f/2.8: 305g. Sony 16-70 f/4: 308g.

When you compare lenses of similar shooting envelope, you find that the higher quality of the m43 lenses comes at the cost of higher weight.

The difference in price here seems to be more like $100 at most

"At most"? No. "At least" would be closer to the truth. The difference in price between the Oly 7-14 f/2,8Pro and the Sony 10-18 is $450.

for most of these lenses though, and MFT seems to have lenses that are almost as good as the "pro" line, for a quarter of the cost.

They don't have the same shooting envelope.

The same price sony lenses are... generally seen as not very good. Though some people like them.

They generally aren't as good, but you have to evaluate the system IQ quality, not just the lens quality to address the IQ question you raised in the OP.

Only if you accept that E-M1 and a6000 are the only bodies on the market.

For some reason, that's what I thought OP was comparing.

Not the e-m1. The E-M10ii. Which is like $600 cheaper I think.

The E-M10II is the same price as an a6000, $350 less than an E-M1, and is less camera than the ones I have been using for the comparisons.

I've been using UK prices, converted into dollars to keep it consistant with your values. Seems that sony is a lot cheaper where you are. I did mention this in my post anyway.

Seems that you really hate M43 as a system, as it is too expensive and too low quality for what you do. I plan to test out this camera before I make a decision on it anyway

FingerPainter wrote:

Also they're pretty different lenses... though I guess the 16-70 has better range, while the 12-35 is better for low light.

In terms of noise, DOF control and diffraction blur, the 12-35 is < 1/3 stop better, so effectively no difference.

More significant advantage is in the dynamic range, especially in the case of E-M1. It has around 1 stop of dynamic range advantage over A6000 at equivalent ISO.

Most camera makers have lenses at different quality levels. This is true for Oly, Pany and Sony. You are comparing top quality Oly and Pany lenses to less-than-top quality Sony lenses. As you can see, from the price comparisons for the lenses you cited, to get higher sharpness on an m43 body, you need to pay a higher price, and whe you get similar quality you pay a simialr price. I didn't bother to check weights, but I wouldn't be surprised to see that the better m43 lenses weighed more than the poorer Sony lenses.

This is a little strange to me, as I think it's the first time I've ever seen someone argue that sony lenses were cheaper and better quality.

The Sony lenses are not better quality. Pretty much all the m43 lenses are better than their Sony counterparts. But when one adds in the effect of the higher resolution Sony sensors, the Sony system produces better images.

That is not what DXO graphs show for the lenses you listed. Olympus 12-40mm, Panasonic 12-35mm and Panasonic 7-14mm all outresolve Sony counterparts even when used on a 16MP sensor vs 24MP sensor being used on the Sony side.

The scores are mostly within 1 P-Mpix of each other, which I don't think is enough to declare one a definitive winner.

If they score about the same, but the Sony is several hundred dollars less expensive, isn't the Sony a value winner?

Part of the equation is that a lot of the MFT lenses are smaller and lighter, but still produce similar results.

Are they? Let look at the lenses you called out in this post.

Oly 7-14 f/2.8 PRO: 534g. Pany 7-14 f/4: 300g. Sony 10-18 f/4: 225g.

Oly 12-40 f/2.8 PRO: 382g. Pany 12-35mm f/2.8: 305g. Sony 16-70 f/4: 308g.

When you compare lenses of similar shooting envelope, you find that the higher quality of the m43 lenses comes at the cost of higher weight.

Lower weight of the Sony lenses is also due to inferior build quality. More plastic parts being used and no weather sealing.

The difference in price here seems to be more like $100 at most

"At most"? No. "At least" would be closer to the truth. The difference in price between the Oly 7-14 f/2,8Pro and the Sony 10-18 is $450.

Least would be -$100. Olympus 12-40mm is $100 cheaper than Sony 16-70mm.

Nirurin wrote:

I've been using UK prices, converted into dollars to keep it consistant with your values. Seems that sony is a lot cheaper where you are. I did mention this in my post anyway.

UK prices might well explain the difference. I'm not in New York City or the US any more than you are, but I find B&H prices the best possible comparator to use on a US-based website, unless prices are requested for a specified market.

Seems that you really hate M43 as a system,

I don't hate it. I just believe in evaluating it objectively. If size and weight were more of a concern for me than IQ, or If I used a stills camera for video, or if Ihad o hike long distances to where I ws takign pictures, I might very well use m43 - either that or 1". As it is, the cameras I own are APS-C and FF. My most recent purchase was an a6000, but not for the image quality. It was intended as a lightweight travel camera for trips where photography was going to take a back seat, and as a learner camera for my wife and daughter. We looked at m43, but concluded that the Sony was better value for our intended usage. Since a fair proportion of my more serious work is events, sports and wildlife, I prefer a dSLR to mirrorless when IQ matters.

as it is too expensive and too low quality for what you do.

Too expensive for the IQ, when IQ is not a high priority, and IQ not good enough when IQ is a priority.

I plan to test out this camera before I make a decision on it anyway

Always a good idea.

Marko2 wrote:

FingerPainter wrote:

Also they're pretty different lenses... though I guess the 16-70 has better range, while the 12-35 is better for low light.

In terms of noise, DOF control and diffraction blur, the 12-35 is < 1/3 stop better, so effectively no difference.

More significant advantage is in the dynamic range, especially in the case of E-M1. It has around 1 stop of dynamic range advantage over A6000 at equivalent ISO.

That's an interesting comparison. I use Bill Claff's PDR numbers as the most useful, and they show the E-M1 having a 1/3 to 1/2 stop advantage at equivalent ISOs, not the 1 stop you claim.

The difference could be due to different data sets, or due to a different interpretation of "equivalent ISO". I'd suggest the latter is closer to 2/3 stop difference than 1 stop.

Also, you only need to compare on equivalent ISO when taking the same picture. Most of the time, one is not constrained in both DOF and shutter speed, so you can take advantage of the larger format's wider shooting envelop. In that case you might want to consider the difference in DR at base ISO: the a6000 has a 1 stop advantage. At same ISO, the a6000 has an advantage of between 1/6 and 1/3 stop.

Nirurin wrote:

I've been using UK prices, converted into dollars to keep it consistant with your values. Seems that sony is a lot cheaper where you are. I did mention this in my post anyway.

Seems that you really hate M43 as a system, as it is too expensive and too low quality for what you do. I plan to test out this camera before I make a decision on it anyway

I don't think there's any hate involved here, just different perspectives.

as it is too expensive and too low quality for what you do.

Too expensive for the IQ, when IQ is not a high priority, and IQ not good enough when IQ is a priority.

This seems to depend a lot on which lenses you like. right now, the lenses I want from the system are slightly (not hugely) cheaper on M43 than e-mount, but the M43 versions are significantly better. However if I wanted to use legacy lenses, or some of the super wide angle lenses, I'd probably be better off on a6000. Though for wide angle I would use the rokinon 12 f2 on both systems, which I think is identical in every way anyway.

E-Mount is unfortunately not a very good lens system overall. The cheap lenses are (mostly) bad, and the good lenses are extremely expensive. There's a lot of good legacy lenses though. A lot of the good lenses are FF ones, and so are heavier and bigger. There are a few exceptions to this, but not many. However if all you want are the holy trinity of primes, then e-mount has some very good ones for pretty cheap.

Or, if you also have a FF sony, then you can use the lenses on both and be happy. I'd never get a FF camera though.

I plan to test out this camera before I make a decision on it anyway

Always a good idea.

Saying all this, my initial tests with the GX85 left me a little uncertain. I only tested with the 12-32 kit lens, and in very poor light, so it wasn't a fair test. Testing against the a6000, both RAW pictures seemed pretty much identical, but with the GX85 having significantly better colours. However there was just something... flat about it? This was at like 3am though so it might have just been my imagination. I need to do a much fairer test really.

Nirurin wrote:

as it is too expensive and too low quality for what you do.

Too expensive for the IQ, when IQ is not a high priority, and IQ not good enough when IQ is a priority.

Though for wide angle I would use the rokinon 12 f2 on both systems, which I think is identical in every way anyway.

Just FYI, I think rokinon 12 on Sony is equivalent to 18 mm and on MFT is equivalent to 24 mm (same FL as the kit lens at its widest). I am considering this lens for wide angle too and I think it is not wide enough when used on MFT?

E-Mount is unfortunately not a very good lens system overall. The cheap lenses are (mostly) bad, and the good lenses are extremely expensive. There's a lot of good legacy lenses though. A lot of the good lenses are FF ones, and so are heavier and bigger. There are a few exceptions to this, but not many. However if all you want are the holy trinity of primes, then e-mount has some very good ones for pretty cheap.

Or, if you also have a FF sony, then you can use the lenses on both and be happy. I'd never get a FF camera though.

I plan to test out this camera before I make a decision on it anyway

Always a good idea.

Saying all this, my initial tests with the GX85 left me a little uncertain. I only tested with the 12-32 kit lens, and in very poor light, so it wasn't a fair test. Testing against the a6000, both RAW pictures seemed pretty much identical, but with the GX85 having significantly better colours. However there was just something... flat about it? This was at like 3am though so it might have just been my imagination. I need to do a much fairer test really.

I am looking forward to your test results. I've tested A6000 before for a week. At that time, I felt I prefer my LX100's color than A6000 (for portrait) too. But later on when I returned the A6000, and after I started to process the raw files, I felt I prefer the color of A6000 instead. It could be very subjective though.

curiosifly wrote:

Nirurin wrote:

as it is too expensive and too low quality for what you do.

Too expensive for the IQ, when IQ is not a high priority, and IQ not good enough when IQ is a priority.

Though for wide angle I would use the rokinon 12 f2 on both systems, which I think is identical in every way anyway.

Just FYI, I think rokinon 12 on Sony is equivalent to 18 mm and on MFT is equivalent to 24 mm (same FL as the kit lens at its widest). I am considering this lens for wide angle too and I think it is not wide enough when used on MFT?

Well... You will just end up with less stars, from the wide-angle perspective. For astrophotography though, for pro photos, you'd always be better off with full frame I suspect.

I think there are wider angle lenses available, but most of the guides for astro tend to say that the aperture size is the most important factor. So maybe one of the 1.7 or 1.4 lenses would give a better result? But the rokinon is also a very sharp and clear lens, which may make up for the aperture size.

FingerPainter wrote:

Marko2 wrote:

FingerPainter wrote:

Also they're pretty different lenses... though I guess the 16-70 has better range, while the 12-35 is better for low light.

In terms of noise, DOF control and diffraction blur, the 12-35 is < 1/3 stop better, so effectively no difference.

More significant advantage is in the dynamic range, especially in the case of E-M1. It has around 1 stop of dynamic range advantage over A6000 at equivalent ISO.

That's an interesting comparison. I use Bill Claff's PDR numbers as the most useful, and they show the E-M1 having a 1/3 to 1/2 stop advantage at equivalent ISOs, not the 1 stop you claim.

Why are his numbers more useful than DXO numbers?

The difference could be due to different data sets, or due to a different interpretation of "equivalent ISO". I'd suggest the latter is closer to 2/3 stop difference than 1 stop.

I rounded to 1 stop, if one wants to be more precise it is right in between 1 and 2/3 stop difference. log 2 (2/1.5)^2 = 0.83

Also, you only need to compare on equivalent ISO when taking the same picture. Most of the time, one is not constrained in both DOF and shutter speed, so you can take advantage of the larger format's wider shooting envelop. In that case you might want to consider the difference in DR at base ISO: the a6000 has a 1 stop advantage. At same ISO, the a6000 has an advantage of between 1/6 and 1/3 stop.

That depends on the photographer, his preferred subjects, and conditions he usually shoots in.