Am I missing something?

[Ab Latchin]

Raised, you have never understood and probably never will, take you last comment. If it were true, why would DPR use a benchmark camera?

 

[geoson]

First things first, I am not trolling nor trying to start an equivalency war. I’ve spent a lot of time asking questions about this topic and finally had the opportunity to test out some examples myself (rather than just getting verbal/written feedback and watching/reading reviews). I genuinely want to share my personal findings on comparing two different cameras and get some feedback, because I feel like I might be missing something. And yes, I am comparing a full-frame with a micro 4/3’s. (If that frustrates you, and you don’t want to have an adult conversation about the comparison, please stop reading, and move onto a post that improves your day).

Why am I comparing these two systems? Because an Olympus E-M1.3 with 12-100 f4 PRO and Oly 100-400 f5.0-6.3 and a Canon R5 with RF 24-105 f4 RF 100-500 are very similar in size and weight. I can also achieve an 800mm FOV with the RF 100-500 if I use the 1.6 crop (and still have similar megapixels). Yes, you gain, at most, a couple pounds with Canon system. However, for my personal use, I don’t consider that very much. Especially, if I gain significantly better image quality with the FF Canon…then I’m willing to increase a little extra weight to my pack.

Here are some images.


Oly E-M1.3 with 12-100 f4 PRO Linear gradient applied to sky and foreground (to lighten and darken respectively).


Canon R5 with 24-105 f4 exact same linear gradients applied to sky and foreground (to lighten and darken respectively).

In these first two images, I personally don’t see any tangible difference. Yes, there is slightly more noise in the Olympus image, but not anything that makes me dislike the image or is distracting from the image. I shot these two images with equivalent (*gasp* dare I say it?) settings, EXCEPT for ISO. Which I put at the each camera’s recommended setting of 200 and 100 respectively. I thought I would give each camera the best shot at giving me their best representation of the image, all other settings similar. Again, I don’t notice any difference, and I can’t tell if the slightly more saturated oranges in the R5 image are simply as result of the positioning of the sun in the sky being slightly different as it was setting and the images being taken at a minute or two apart (the time it took me to grab the other camera).

Here’s another example:


Olympus E-M1.3 with Live ND (can’t remember which LIVE ND setting…maybe ND16 or 32)


R5 with Multiple Exposure mode at 9 frames Averaging setting.

For all of you equivalency police out there, I know these aren’t “equivalent” images. But they are taken with very similar settings. And I purposefully wanted to see what I would be missing without the LIVE ND feature AND if I could recreate that feature with the R5 (with the multiple exposure modes).

Again, I don’t see a huge difference. I see a little more detail in the rocks in the R5 image, but see very similar in detail in the rocks with the E-M1.3. Also, I like the colors more in the E-M1.3 version. Here’s some more:


Olympus E-M1.3 (Linear gradient applied to taste)


R5 (similar linear gradient to the E-M1 image above applied for taste).

All of the photos above are in low-light situations…where the FF should be outpacing the m4/3’s in image quality. I just don’t see it. Yes, a slight increase in noise with the m4/3’s, but I don’t find it bad. What am I missing?

These next couple are in better light situations, so I wasn’t expecting to see a huge difference in IQ, but I figured I’d post them anyways. I wanted to see how much detail I could get between the highlights and shadows in some. Again, similar camera settings and FOV for each camera. (Sorry if I mislabel the photo, I tried to mark which was which. I’m sure the Metadata will correct me).


R5


E-M1.3


R5


E-M1.3


R5 (wanted to see the increased dynamic range)


E-M1.3 (Wanted to see the difference in the dynamic range).

With some images, I see a little improvement with the colors in the R5. However, it isn’t anything drastic. This also isn’t a consistent finding. Sometimes, the E-M1.3 has better colors. (By shooting in RAW, most of that can also be mitigated and edited to taste in post with either system)

Also, I know I will get shallower depth of field with the Canon, but with the Oly PRO 25 and 45 f1.2, I get enough depth of field and still have nice DOF. (Disclaimer: I have no interest in buying or carrying around the Canon f1.2 lenses) Plus, for most circumstances, I can change the foreground/background distance to control DOF as well. (For some reason, it won’t let me post more R5 photos to compare. Maybe I can post them in a reply to this post? Long story short, I’m not unhappy with the E-M1.3 images compared to the R5). I also know that I should get more detail out of the images with the R5, but again, I don’t really see that either. (With that said, I’m not printing any images…so I may see a difference with the prints…and yes, I recognize I can print larger on the R5, but I rarely print bigger than 24x36 these days).

Again, I don’t wish to troll or start any equivalency war or anything. (Unfortunately, I realize there will be some all upset about this post and berate me…oh well). I’m hoping to have a friendly discussion and get other’s opinions on their own findings. I’m sure I’m not the only one these days to question if I could get better image quality by packing similar weighted and priced gear.

Again, I genuinely want to have a discussion on what I may be missing or if people experience similar/different results as I’m getting. I am trying out the R5 and Canon system, thinking I would see noticeable Ints. I knew I was sacrificing some cool features with the Oly (i.e. LIVE ND and LIVE Comp), but figured, if I was carrying the same weight with the system, I might as well get the best IQ I could.

However, personally, (with what I’m seeing in my personal use real world, quick shot, examples so far), I just can’t see a big difference which would justify switching to the Canon system. Also, if the E-M1.3 sensor can keep up with the R5, that’s pretty impressive! With all that said, am I missing something???

There's no question that 35mm has some advantages over m43, but if your shooting doesn't include low light, huge prints or lots of cropping, and if the m43 output is "good enough" for you, 35mm has no purpose for you.

 

[bofo777]

Short answer?

Yes,

and,

No.

Look, I love M43 for a lot of reasons. And, it's very good at many things.

And, if your main shooting window is within the spectrum where M43 is at its best, then the gains you would get from using a FF would not outweigh the liabilities that system has.

BUT.

If you shoot outside the envelope where M43's strengths lie, it becomes progressively harder to make it generate the output you are looking for. So, instead of twisting yourself into a pretzel, and buying exotically fast lenses, a larger sensored system makes more sense for that usage.

GEE Whiz I better sprinkle some "salt" on myself.

It also depends a little on the FF you are using. I found the Canon RP to not be head and shoulders above the 20MP M43 sensor, when I had one...but it's far and away the least advanced and flexible FF sensor in a mirrorless camera today, so that's not a surprise. However, even with that limitation, its DR, tonality and ability to render subtle tone gradations, were still visibly greater than what the M43 could produce in the same situations. Maybe not by an earth shattering amount, but the differences were still there.

And, lastly, all of this depends on what you shoot.

I did not blow up the images in the original post, but did a cursory scroll down without looking at the camera info, just to see if I could ID which produced what image, and I correctly identified what produced which image for all of them. Does that matter? Well, none of those images were particularly demanding in terms of demonstrating what a camera can do. All of them had limited colors, depth, DR, etc, so none of them really tested the strengths (or weaknesses) of either format.

Take photos of something with complex subtle colors and/or difficult light, and do the comparison then. That will tell you more about what each system's limits are.

I do a lot of flower photography. The 20 MP M43 sensor is a world better than the 16MP M43 sensor in its ability to render complex color hues and tonal gradations, so I do use it a lot for that. However, FF is a decent sized step better yet than the 20MP M43 sensor in terms of capturing and rendering those characteristics.

I also shoot a bunch of architectural things, in town. In that situation, unless I was doing lots of dark doorways in high contrast situations, I would barely notice the differences between the formats.

So, it really depends on what and where you shoot.

I have a lot of M43 gear. I really enjoy using the PL 100-400mm lens for birding, nature, etc, and I use it on a GX9, mostly. To get that kind of reach on a FF, I would be dragging around a 5lb lens...no thank you. I also have a GM5, which is still a blast to take when you want to be inconspicuous or travel very light.

On the other hand, my quest for the ultimate floral rendering tool drags me to the FF arena with some regularity. I recently gave the Panasonic S5 a try, and it's actually fabulous. I have not had a chance to do direct comparison shots with the S5 and the GX9, of flower subjects, yet, though, so I don't have any I can post for you here, but for my purposes, it really shines.

Would I tell people to go out and buy FF over M43? Heck no. You have to be willing to carry a lot more weight and it's fussier to get used to using. And the lenses aren't cheap. On the other hand, if your usage parameters are making you jump through all sorts of hoops to get the results you want with M43, then FF is a better choice. Simple as that.

Or, you could be a fool like me and have both

-J

 

[rreichar]

I shoot mostly bird pics. I do other stuff as well but 95% of my shots are birds and I shoot a lot of those. I don’t own an R5 and the 100-500. I have an R6 and an adapted Sigma 150-500. I also shoot a Panasonic G9 with the Panasonic Leica 100-400. Same megapixels. I prefer the 4X3 ratio for social media so I usually start by cropping the R6 images to 4x3 so that reduces it to 16 megapixels. Not he fault of the camera and IQ is just fine but I thought I’d mention it. The R6 plus the Sigma is about $3300. IQ is fine and I don’t mind it at all though I almost always prefer the M43s images in decent light. I’d much rather carry the M43s setup as it is much smaller and easier to handle. The only times I prefer the R6/Sigma combo is for birds inflight because the Af is a bit faster and poor light. The recent G9 update mitigates this a little. I believe the Canon AF would be dramatically better with a native lens but it would cost a heck of a lot more. I may eventually end up with an R5 and the RF 100-500 and shoot in crop mode for birds. Best of both worlds? Relatively light compared to the Sigma with the adapter. Certainly better Af performance. But my G9 and Leica 100-400 has better stabilization and is much smaller and lighter. The difference is when the light is questionable. As others have said mainly when I am pushing the envelope. Of course for birds the best pics are typically early or late in poor light. So I am thinking about selling my M43s stuff and the R6 and Sigma for an R5 with 100-500. The G9 and PL 100-400 was about $2300. I have multiple lenses for both systems to cover whatever I need to do. Not much size difference until I get to the bird lenses. So I can stick with my $2300 M43s system, or keep using both, or sell everything and buy a system with better autofocus and better in low light that’s a reasonably sized for $6600. I got deal on the Canon system and it’s great with RF lenses. Not as great with the Sigma. So yeah the R5 with the 100-500 is better than my M43s stuff for birds. But it cost 3 times more. And it will only be better for the last 5 or 10% of my pics. Of course those are the pics that drive gear purchases. But it’s not a difference that will matter much for most pics. It will matter for flying birds in poor light. Is it worth $4300? Maybe. If M43s had a slightly better AF system and a bit better low light performance I wouldn’t even consider it. We just had a vacation where I knew I wouldn’t be taking bird pics so I just took my M43s stuff. I never even thought about taking the R6.

 

[dgrogers]

I think you mean that Nikon24-200 or Canon24-240 are "consumer lens" (with price to show for it) whereas Olympus 12-100 is "Pro" lens but not sure if the image shows the difference of league ;-)

These are sample shots from DPR RAW converted with PL4 without any correction - same size crop ( ~1000x1000), resampled 1000x1000


Oly 12-100

And


Nikon 24-200

I don't think it's a league of difference in image quality.

You can't tell much from those samples for obvious reasons and most higher end superzooms do well at some focal lengths and apertures, but there is always that caveat in reviews and user discussion for lenses like the 24-200, and that is its a very good lens for a superzoom but its still a superzoom and there are much better zoom lenses in the system. You don't hear that with the m.Zuiko 12-100. It's an excellent lens at all focal lengths and at all apertures from corner to corner.

 

[Shadowsurfer]

I was looking hard at the Nikon Z6 II before purchasing the E-M1.3. In the end, it was the 12-100 f/4 Pro and the features such as class leading IBIS, Pro Capture, built in ND filter, and hand held high res that kept me with Olympus. I've yet to see a full frame image that has made me regret my decision, and if I did move to a different system I would certainly miss the 12-100 because there are many shots that I would have missed if I had to change lenses to get a different focal length. the 200-800mm equivalent 100-400 has since been added and I would struggle to get that reach with full frame.

I had whittled down my travel setup choice to the Z7 + 24-200 or the Olympus EM1 + 12-100, when it was time for a system refresh. They weigh about the same.

I went for the Z7 for the weight reason and the higher resolution, better DR and tonal separation characteristics of the Z7 sensor.

I know I could get the Nikon 24-200 or Canon 24-240 for full frame, but those lenses are not in the same league as the Olympus 12-100 and this is a lens I don't want to live without now that I've used it.

In my experience the 24-200 is a very good lens, much better than I expected, from a non "S" range lens. If you go to the Z forum you can read many positive experiences that people have had with this lens.

I think you are being rather unfair to say that "these lenses are not in the same league", at least for the Z lens. Actual user experience does not bear this out.

We need to be careful when we judge lenses as being superior, because the maker has plonked a "Pro" label or a gold ring on a lens. I remember back in the past, Nikon's economic "E" lenses had some gems amongst them.

In the end, each format has strengths and weaknesses to fit the needs of different people. It's great to have choices, isn't it?

Yes.

--
https://momenti-indecisivi.blogspot.com/

 

[victorav]

Quite frankly the images shown with either camera aren't the best for assessing their differences. Almost everything you shot was backlit and not very detailed so you're really not giving either camera a good chance to show what it can do.

From a personal perspective I have a Panny G9 and Canon R and there are very noticeable IQ differences in the Canons favor.

Making this kind of statement needs a little bit of proof . Got any pics that can substantiate the "very noticeable IQ difference.....

It doesn't matter if they provide "proof". There isn't really an agreed upon standard with which to base claims of "noticable" or "marginal" differences. It's all subjective.

But you must have proof to arrive at a "Subjective" result.. otherwise is is all "Hot Air"..

But how can you prove something that is a personal opinion?

"Personal opinion" does not mean it is beyond "proof".

And there are agreed upon methods in measuring image metrics such as noise, resolution, DR, color gamut, etc are not subjective opinion.

Yep you can certainly measure a difference, the problem is when one throws around terms like "significant" or "meaningless".

The issue is not with if you can measure a difference.

The image quality that one thinks is acceptable is a "subjective opinion" but not the measure of quality.

But couldn't quality also include composition, lighting, location? How do you measure composition?

Yes, they could be part of the "overall image quality" but not affected by the sensor performance. I suppose we could make a case if sensor aspect ratio can affect the "composition" but I don't think that's what you have in mind.

imho, though, even the composition and such can be "graded" by the "experts" who have studied arts and color theories and what not. One could disagree with the experts but should not dismiss them as often dismiss them because they have studied the subject matter as the pointed head academics.

True, but it's not as easy a thing to quantify as iso performance for eg.

I am acutely aware of "composition" myself because I think I am "composition blind" :-(

Like you have a hard time seeing a composition?

'fraid so - earlier on I had hard time understanding what image composition meant, even, because I tend to see the elements of the image and miss the relationship between the elements.

Since I took up painting and drawing and understood "negative space" I got much better at understanding the "composition" but it's still a struggle. My wife, on the other hand, pickup all that I miss :-O

They way I learned to improve my composition was to look at photographers I liked, and my favorite images from them. Then I just tried to figure out why I liked the image. I also found going to the same place over and over helps.

 

[mostlyboringphotog]

Quite frankly the images shown with either camera aren't the best for assessing their differences. Almost everything you shot was backlit and not very detailed so you're really not giving either camera a good chance to show what it can do.

From a personal perspective I have a Panny G9 and Canon R and there are very noticeable IQ differences in the Canons favor.

Making this kind of statement needs a little bit of proof . Got any pics that can substantiate the "very noticeable IQ difference.....

It doesn't matter if they provide "proof". There isn't really an agreed upon standard with which to base claims of "noticable" or "marginal" differences. It's all subjective.

But you must have proof to arrive at a "Subjective" result.. otherwise is is all "Hot Air"..

But how can you prove something that is a personal opinion?

"Personal opinion" does not mean it is beyond "proof".

And there are agreed upon methods in measuring image metrics such as noise, resolution, DR, color gamut, etc are not subjective opinion.

Yep you can certainly measure a difference, the problem is when one throws around terms like "significant" or "meaningless".

The issue is not with if you can measure a difference.

The image quality that one thinks is acceptable is a "subjective opinion" but not the measure of quality.

But couldn't quality also include composition, lighting, location? How do you measure composition?

Yes, they could be part of the "overall image quality" but not affected by the sensor performance. I suppose we could make a case if sensor aspect ratio can affect the "composition" but I don't think that's what you have in mind.

imho, though, even the composition and such can be "graded" by the "experts" who have studied arts and color theories and what not. One could disagree with the experts but should not dismiss them as often dismiss them because they have studied the subject matter as the pointed head academics.

True, but it's not as easy a thing to quantify as iso performance for eg.

I am acutely aware of "composition" myself because I think I am "composition blind" :-(

Like you have a hard time seeing a composition?

'fraid so - earlier on I had hard time understanding what image composition meant, even, because I tend to see the elements of the image and miss the relationship between the elements.

Since I took up painting and drawing and understood "negative space" I got much better at understanding the "composition" but it's still a struggle. My wife, on the other hand, pickup all that I miss :-O

They way I learned to improve my composition was to look at photographers I liked, and my favorite images from them. Then I just tried to figure out why I liked the image. I also found going to the same place over and over helps.

Thanks for that tip - when I had that "Aha, this is what they mean by composition" - it was rather thrilling ;-)

 

[unhappymeal]

I think you mean that Nikon24-200 or Canon24-240 are "consumer lens" (with price to show for it) whereas Olympus 12-100 is "Pro" lens but not sure if the image shows the difference of league ;-)

These are sample shots from DPR RAW converted with PL4 without any correction - same size crop ( ~1000x1000), resampled 1000x1000


Oly 12-100

And


Nikon 24-200

I don't think it's a league of difference in image quality.

You can't tell much from those samples for obvious reasons and most higher end superzooms do well at some focal lengths and apertures, but there is always that caveat in reviews and user discussion for lenses like the 24-200, and that is its a very good lens for a superzoom but its still a superzoom and there are much better zoom lenses in the system. You don't hear that with the m.Zuiko 12-100. It's an excellent lens at all focal lengths and at all apertures from corner to corner.

Excellent assuming you use the software corrections. The wide end has absurd amounts of distortion without the software profiles.

 

[unhappymeal]

I was looking hard at the Nikon Z6 II before purchasing the E-M1.3. In the end, it was the 12-100 f/4 Pro and the features such as class leading IBIS, Pro Capture, built in ND filter, and hand held high res that kept me with Olympus. I've yet to see a full frame image that has made me regret my decision, and if I did move to a different system I would certainly miss the 12-100 because there are many shots that I would have missed if I had to change lenses to get a different focal length. the 200-800mm equivalent 100-400 has since been added and I would struggle to get that reach with full frame.

I had whittled down my travel setup choice to the Z7 + 24-200 or the Olympus EM1 + 12-100, when it was time for a system refresh. They weigh about the same.

I went for the Z7 for the weight reason and the higher resolution, better DR and tonal separation characteristics of the Z7 sensor.

I know I could get the Nikon 24-200 or Canon 24-240 for full frame, but those lenses are not in the same league as the Olympus 12-100 and this is a lens I don't want to live without now that I've used it.

In my experience the 24-200 is a very good lens, much better than I expected, from a non "S" range lens. If you go to the Z forum you can read many positive experiences that people have had with this lens.

I think you are being rather unfair to say that "these lenses are not in the same league", at least for the Z lens. Actual user experience does not bear this out.

We need to be careful when we judge lenses as being superior, because the maker has plonked a "Pro" label or a gold ring on a lens. I remember back in the past, Nikon's economic "E" lenses had some gems amongst them.

In the end, each format has strengths and weaknesses to fit the needs of different people. It's great to have choices, isn't it?

Yes.

 

[ahaslett]

Quite frankly the images shown with either camera aren't the best for assessing their differences. Almost everything you shot was backlit and not very detailed so you're really not giving either camera a good chance to show what it can do.

From a personal perspective I have a Panny G9 and Canon R and there are very noticeable IQ differences in the Canons favor.

Making this kind of statement needs a little bit of proof . Got any pics that can substantiate the "very noticeable IQ difference.....

It doesn't matter if they provide "proof". There isn't really an agreed upon standard with which to base claims of "noticable" or "marginal" differences. It's all subjective.

But you must have proof to arrive at a "Subjective" result.. otherwise is is all "Hot Air"..

But how can you prove something that is a personal opinion?

"Personal opinion" does not mean it is beyond "proof".

And there are agreed upon methods in measuring image metrics such as noise, resolution, DR, color gamut, etc are not subjective opinion.

Yep you can certainly measure a difference, the problem is when one throws around terms like "significant" or "meaningless".

The issue is not with if you can measure a difference.

The image quality that one thinks is acceptable is a "subjective opinion" but not the measure of quality.

But couldn't quality also include composition, lighting, location? How do you measure composition?

Yes, they could be part of the "overall image quality" but not affected by the sensor performance. I suppose we could make a case if sensor aspect ratio can affect the "composition" but I don't think that's what you have in mind.

imho, though, even the composition and such can be "graded" by the "experts" who have studied arts and color theories and what not. One could disagree with the experts but should not dismiss them as often dismiss them because they have studied the subject matter as the pointed head academics.

True, but it's not as easy a thing to quantify as iso performance for eg.

I am acutely aware of "composition" myself because I think I am "composition blind" :-(

Like you have a hard time seeing a composition?

'fraid so - earlier on I had hard time understanding what image composition meant, even, because I tend to see the elements of the image and miss the relationship between the elements.

Since I took up painting and drawing and understood "negative space" I got much better at understanding the "composition" but it's still a struggle. My wife, on the other hand, pickup all that I miss :-O

They way I learned to improve my composition was to look at photographers I liked, and my favorite images from them. Then I just tried to figure out why I liked the image. I also found going to the same place over and over helps.

I found having a tutor to explain what they liked about images (typically also what I liked) and how that related to composition got me started. Looking at other people's images is fascinating, especially when others like them and I don't and vice versa.

I'm with you on multiple visits. The weather, foliage seasonality, position of the sun, phase and position of the moon, tidal range and state all start to become considerations. I just noticed that tidal action can throw up and remove features like a bank of white shells. Having people in the scene dressed and behaving differently is another factor. How many times have I waited for the person in a red coat to step behind a tree!

Andrew

 

[Jeff]

... snip ...

Excellent assuming you use the software corrections. The wide end has absurd amounts of distortion without the software profiles.

So? The proof of the pudding is in the eating, isn't it?

 

[jwilliams]

I think you mean that Nikon24-200 or Canon24-240 are "consumer lens" (with price to show for it) whereas Olympus 12-100 is "Pro" lens but not sure if the image shows the difference of league ;-)

Yes, a point often overlooked. I really can't comment on the exact lenses under discussion but I've shot m43 since the GH1 and at the same time both Canon APSC and FF DSLRs and now the R system so I can generalize.

First, just because a m43 says 'Pro' (or Leica) on the side of it does not make it necessarily better than any other lens. Often consumer FF lenses will out perform 'Pro' m43 gear. All lenses now are pretty good and a FF lens has a lot easier time equaling or exceeding a m43 lens because it has 2x as much distance on each axis to resolve the same detail. I've done tests myself and found consumer APSC and FF lenses that performed as well as or better than my Oly 'Pro' and Panny 'Leica' lenses.

Now this doesn't make these m43 lenses bad in any way, but one cannot assume 'Pro' m43 lenses out perform every day common man FF or even APSC lenses.

Yes it is (great to have choice) and it's even better if the choice are made with the realistic understanding of the equipment.

Yes, and that means throwing aside any preconceived notions and what the word 'Pro' means.

 

[SDreamer]

I think what you're proving more is if you know your gear well enough you'll be able to pull the photos you'll want almost regardless of gear. You're not seeing the advantages of full frame because you're pretty much shooting optimally for each. You exposed how you wanted, and were within the error set for your tastes during editing. You probably never had to go so far out for dynamic range limits of mft becuase you were already there. Now if you run and gun and got the exposure wrong, FF would more likely save your butt to get that extra dynamic range out of that, but again since you took your photos where you wanted it already you didn't have to go that far out to see that advantage. Then there's the detail. With the equivalency that works in your favor for DOF on mft because you don't have to stop down as much as you would on FF so your photos. I think mft for the hiking landscape photographer, its advantage because every ounce matters, and the less DOF helps them out in terms of image quality. Now if you're shooting portraits of people, or fast moving objects in low light such as indoor sports, I think the FF "shallower" DOF and low light advantage becomes more apparent. Even then, now that AF on mft is starting to adopt PDAF, you should be able to under exposure a little bit, using the DR you still have from RAWs to pump up the exposure to where you want it, and still use a decent shutter speed (from my experience on mft). I guess what I am getting at again is your photos were shot correctly according to your taste. Anyone can take any of the RAWs you did then bump up the shadow and complain that mft vs FF DR, but that isn't what you the photographer wanted anyways.

 

[dgrogers]

I think you mean that Nikon24-200 or Canon24-240 are "consumer lens" (with price to show for it) whereas Olympus 12-100 is "Pro" lens but not sure if the image shows the difference of league ;-)

Yes, a point often overlooked. I really can't comment on the exact lenses under discussion but I've shot m43 since the GH1 and at the same time both Canon APSC and FF DSLRs and now the R system so I can generalize.

First, just because a m43 says 'Pro' (or Leica) on the side of it does not make it necessarily better than any other lens. Often consumer FF lenses will out perform 'Pro' m43 gear. All lenses now are pretty good and a FF lens has a lot easier time equaling or exceeding a m43 lens because it has 2x as much distance on each axis to resolve the same detail. I've done tests myself and found consumer APSC and FF lenses that performed as well as or better than my Oly 'Pro' and Panny 'Leica' lenses.

Pure insanity. MTF on M4/3 lenses are usually double that of full frame because of that. They are designed for the m4/3 format, not full frame.

Now this doesn't make these m43 lenses bad in any way, but one cannot assume 'Pro' m43 lenses out perform every day common man FF or even APSC lenses.

Yes it is (great to have choice) and it's even better if the choice are made with the realistic understanding of the equipment.

Yes, and that means throwing aside any preconceived notions and what the word 'Pro' means.

First of all, I never said the 24-200 was a bad lens. It looks like a fine lens but I would not call it exceptional. The corners are definitely lacking in sharpness compared to the center. Will you notice that under normal viewing? Probably not. The 12-100 is, however, exceptional.

 

[Jeff]

I think you mean that Nikon24-200 or Canon24-240 are "consumer lens" (with price to show for it) whereas Olympus 12-100 is "Pro" lens but not sure if the image shows the difference of league ;-)

Yes, a point often overlooked. I really can't comment on the exact lenses under discussion but I've shot m43 since the GH1 and at the same time both Canon APSC and FF DSLRs and now the R system so I can generalize.

First, just because a m43 says 'Pro' (or Leica) on the side of it does not make it necessarily better than any other lens. Often consumer FF lenses will out perform 'Pro' m43 gear. All lenses now are pretty good and a FF lens has a lot easier time equaling or exceeding a m43 lens because it has 2x as much distance on each axis to resolve the same detail. I've done tests myself and found consumer APSC and FF lenses that performed as well as or better than my Oly 'Pro' and Panny 'Leica' lenses.

Now this doesn't make these m43 lenses bad in any way, but one cannot assume 'Pro' m43 lenses out perform every day common man FF or even APSC lenses.

Yes it is (great to have choice) and it's even better if the choice are made with the realistic understanding of the equipment.

Yes, and that means throwing aside any preconceived notions and what the word 'Pro' means.

Points well made and well taken. The only thing I'd add is that "pro" refers to more than just image sharpness. For example, in the case of newer Olympus models it generally means weather sealing, good AF performance, and AF/MF focus clutch.

A dozen years ago the SHG lens from Olympus were in an entirely different league of build quality, with no mention of "pro".

So the wise person would take "pro" to be a marketing label, nothing more or less.

 

[dgrogers]

I think you mean that Nikon24-200 or Canon24-240 are "consumer lens" (with price to show for it) whereas Olympus 12-100 is "Pro" lens but not sure if the image shows the difference of league ;-)

These are sample shots from DPR RAW converted with PL4 without any correction - same size crop ( ~1000x1000), resampled 1000x1000


Oly 12-100

And


Nikon 24-200

I don't think it's a league of difference in image quality.

You can't tell much from those samples for obvious reasons and most higher end superzooms do well at some focal lengths and apertures, but there is always that caveat in reviews and user discussion for lenses like the 24-200, and that is its a very good lens for a superzoom but its still a superzoom and there are much better zoom lenses in the system. You don't hear that with the m.Zuiko 12-100. It's an excellent lens at all focal lengths and at all apertures from corner to corner.

Excellent assuming you use the software corrections. The wide end has absurd amounts of distortion without the software profiles.

Welcome to the digital age where lenses are designed with software corrections in mind.

 

[dgrogers]

I was looking hard at the Nikon Z6 II before purchasing the E-M1.3. In the end, it was the 12-100 f/4 Pro and the features such as class leading IBIS, Pro Capture, built in ND filter, and hand held high res that kept me with Olympus. I've yet to see a full frame image that has made me regret my decision, and if I did move to a different system I would certainly miss the 12-100 because there are many shots that I would have missed if I had to change lenses to get a different focal length. the 200-800mm equivalent 100-400 has since been added and I would struggle to get that reach with full frame.

I had whittled down my travel setup choice to the Z7 + 24-200 or the Olympus EM1 + 12-100, when it was time for a system refresh. They weigh about the same.

I went for the Z7 for the weight reason and the higher resolution, better DR and tonal separation characteristics of the Z7 sensor.

I know I could get the Nikon 24-200 or Canon 24-240 for full frame, but those lenses are not in the same league as the Olympus 12-100 and this is a lens I don't want to live without now that I've used it.

In my experience the 24-200 is a very good lens, much better than I expected, from a non "S" range lens. If you go to the Z forum you can read many positive experiences that people have had with this lens.

I think you are being rather unfair to say that "these lenses are not in the same league", at least for the Z lens. Actual user experience does not bear this out.

We need to be careful when we judge lenses as being superior, because the maker has plonked a "Pro" label or a gold ring on a lens. I remember back in the past, Nikon's economic "E" lenses had some gems amongst them.

Keep in mind I did not say that the 24-200 was a bad lens. I don't think it is, but I do think there are some compromises. Do you think the 24-200 is in the same league as the S lenses?

 

[dgrogers]

The 24-200 is an excellent lens. It is almost as good as the 24-70 f/4 S over the 24-70mm focal length.

In the center? Yes. At the edges?

 

[mostlyboringphotog]

I was looking hard at the Nikon Z6 II before purchasing the E-M1.3. In the end, it was the 12-100 f/4 Pro and the features such as class leading IBIS, Pro Capture, built in ND filter, and hand held high res that kept me with Olympus. I've yet to see a full frame image that has made me regret my decision, and if I did move to a different system I would certainly miss the 12-100 because there are many shots that I would have missed if I had to change lenses to get a different focal length. the 200-800mm equivalent 100-400 has since been added and I would struggle to get that reach with full frame.

I had whittled down my travel setup choice to the Z7 + 24-200 or the Olympus EM1 + 12-100, when it was time for a system refresh. They weigh about the same.

I went for the Z7 for the weight reason and the higher resolution, better DR and tonal separation characteristics of the Z7 sensor.

I know I could get the Nikon 24-200 or Canon 24-240 for full frame, but those lenses are not in the same league as the Olympus 12-100 and this is a lens I don't want to live without now that I've used it.

In my experience the 24-200 is a very good lens, much better than I expected, from a non "S" range lens. If you go to the Z forum you can read many positive experiences that people have had with this lens.

I think you are being rather unfair to say that "these lenses are not in the same league", at least for the Z lens. Actual user experience does not bear this out.

We need to be careful when we judge lenses as being superior, because the maker has plonked a "Pro" label or a gold ring on a lens. I remember back in the past, Nikon's economic "E" lenses had some gems amongst them.

Keep in mind I did not say that the 24-200 was a bad lens. I don't think it is, but I do think there are some compromises. Do you think the 24-200 is in the same league as the S lenses?

We will have to agree what a "league" means, first ;-)