G9 studio scene comparison

[Landscapephoto99]

Why does the G9 produce much better detail than the Oly EM 1.2?

I notice the high ISO on the G9 is somewhat worse. Maybe the G5S will be better.

 

[fft2000]

From https://www.dpreview.com/news/8576711309/now-we-know-sony-a9-is-sharper-than-we-thought

So we sat down one day and spent the entire day shooting many, many runs of our studio scene, slowly moving a macro rail (rather than coarsely adjust focus on the lens) between each run. From these shots, we picked the (centrally) sharpest runs. While our copy of the 85/1.8 appears slightly decentered (the left is softer than the right), the results now are much more in line with where things should be:

After those findings on the Sony A9 users wanted to see also the E-M1.II studio scene shots be done in that way as (like in this thread) it's said to be softer than its competitors (besides the "softer" lens being used). And as the linked article says you will only see those focusing issues when extremely pixel-peeping comparison shots.

 

[Jorginho]

These studio comparisons have a limited value. We do not see tonality too much, colour depth too much and have noclue about Dynamic range. Just the noise iseasier to compare.

Why is it that some (also recent) mFT cams get the Oly 45 mm and others like G9 get the far superior nocticron. It clearly shows (it is much sharper). By judging the sharpness of GX* or PenF compared to G9 I noticed how blurry the letters looked. And though "lens difference"" and sure enough there was. So tht influences the outcome.

Why no HiRes mode? May be a RAw convertor is not available for it yet?

What I see is that the noise between all those 20Mp cams is roughly the same, G9 seems to edge out a bit t higher ISO. But when I turn on light bulb mode and look at the faces inthe shadows G9 does not exhibit a yellow colourcast the way EM1.2 does.

But in general not much between these, so i 'll await DxO to give us some more info on DR especially. May we get a scroe of 13,1-13,5 eV? I bet the noise will still be < 1000 so no EM1.2 scores there. We'll see.

 

[samtheman2014]

These studio comparisons have a limited value. We do not see tonality too much, colour depth too much and have noclue about Dynamic range. Just the noise iseasier to compare.

Why is it that some (also recent) mFT cams get the Oly 45 mm and others like G9 get the far superior nocticron. It clearly shows (it is much sharper). By judging the sharpness of GX* or PenF compared to G9 I noticed how blurry the letters looked. And though "lens difference"" and sure enough there was. So tht influences the outcome.

Why no HiRes mode? May be a RAw convertor is not available for it yet?

What I see is that the noise between all those 20Mp cams is roughly the same, G9 seems to edge out a bit t higher ISO. But when I turn on light bulb mode and look at the faces inthe shadows G9 does not exhibit a yellow colourcast the way EM1.2 does.

But in general not much between these, so i 'll await DxO to give us some more info on DR especially. May we get a scroe of 13,1-13,5 eV? I bet the noise will still be < 1000 so no EM1.2 scores there. We'll see.

Those DXO high ISO scores are comical for the E-M1 II when you look at actual RAW test shots it has negligible advantage over any of the other 20mp cameras including the cheap as chips YIM1 at high ISO. What tiny difference exits is down to in camera processing such as the declared RAW NR , but what do Olympus technicians know





In fact it is being generous , only marginally better than the 2012 E-M5 or other 16mp option meanwhile some lets call them optimists claim full stop or more better performance.







--
Jim Stirling

 

[paul cool]

Yes but a high iso on the mk2 has more dynamic and tonality range than the others most of the noise can cleared at those iso,s which is same for all of them

not much progress then in m43 land but then it is same with all sensors and not forgetting the extra pixels will help a little also over the 16 mp ,but your right the only way to get clean images is to use hi Rez but of course this has limitations ,

I have a g9 on order I am sure I will be pleased with the results jpegs look really pleasing to the eye ,just need to wait for the dynamic range at low iso,s etc but I do so hate test charts they are only ever any good for noise extraction ,or some resolution examples .

As most have pointed out in print well the size I print at all this pixel peeping and measure bating goes flat on its face you have to elevate your enevelope at best most of people’s images are viewed on 27 -32 inch monitor or a smartphone .

Even a printed publication will only be A4 .

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/58365044@N05/

 

[Androole]

It is simply technique. The G9 raw is almost indistinguishable from the PEN F.

Unless there is some new mFTs sensor, the G9 is almost certainly using either the MX269 (GH5) or MX270 (E-M1.2), so why would one really expect much difference other than that caused by the lens, camera settings, or measurement error.

 

[Androole]

I was befuddled as well until I saw that.

--
Amateur Photographer

At the apertures DPreview uses for test shots typically F/5.6 { a good argument to use a more optimum aperture there } the difference in resolution between these two lenses is insignificant



I suspect more mundane factors like even small focus differences or AA filter strength would be far more relevant

--
Jim Stirling

Be careful in your conclusion. That LensTip data is based on a 12MP sensor. A lens that can resolve 70 lp/mm on 12MP may not be able to resolve significantly more than that on a 20MP sensor. But a better lens may be able to. It's not easy to predict the results without actually doing the test.

 

[TomFid]

The point is the aperture choice of F/5.6 is below peak performance for both lenses and will achieve very similar results no matter what sensor you put it on .

... unless shutter shock affects the results, a possibility which they refuse to investigate.

 

[whumber]

The point is the aperture choice of F/5.6 is below peak performance for both lenses and will achieve very similar results no matter what sensor you put it on .

... unless shutter shock affects the results, a possibility which they refuse to investigate.

They're shooting at 1/1000-1/2000s with EFCS so I doubt shutter shock has much effect.

 

[TomFid]

The point is the aperture choice of F/5.6 is below peak performance for both lenses and will achieve very similar results no matter what sensor you put it on .

... unless shutter shock affects the results, a possibility which they refuse to investigate.

They're shooting at 1/1000-1/2000s with EFCS so I doubt shutter shock has much effect.

Does the EPL1 even have real EFCS? I thought it only had the old 1/8 antishock lag. Even if it does, it doesn't entirely solve the problem, due to the 2nd curtain impact. It might not be visually noticeable, but could still affect measurements.

 

[miketala]

Why does the G9 produce much better detail than the Oly EM 1.2?

They tested the G9 with the Nocticron 42.5mm f/1.2, and the Oly EM 1.2 was tested with the Oly 45mm 1.8.

A sharper lens produces more detail.

As I mentioned above at the aperture used there is negligible difference between these lenses



--
Jim Stirling

Of course they look the same on a E-PL1....far cry from a 20MP sensor with no low pass filter.

--
Amateur Photographer

The point is the aperture choice of F/5.6 is below peak performance for both lenses and will achieve very similar results no matter what sensor you put it on . Now were they both set at their optimal aperture on a 20mp sensor one would indeed expect a larger divergence of results. Why they use F/5.6 is of course the real question And I do think that issues like focus accuracy etc will have more impact than any differences in resolution at F/5.6 , the 45mm F/1.8 is no slouch

Imaging resource have test images for both cameras using the excellent FT 50mm macro

--
Jim Stirling

While I wish what you say is true, as it would result in lighter lenses and more money in my bag, I think it is not true for average to good lenses, particularly in the edges......where the best lenses get more resolution out of high resolution sensors.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/06/canon-5ds-and-5ds-r-initial-resolution-tests/

Look, the output, both JPEG and RAW, of the G9 looks much better than the GH5, Pen F, and E-M1 Mark ii......the only difference is the lens. Its gotta be lens or technique, and I can believe poor technique was used on all three of the other cameras as well.

--
Amateur Photographer

The sensor is different. There’s some kind of coating on it that is supposed to help. That could be the difference.

 

[knickerhawk]

The point is the aperture choice of F/5.6 is below peak performance for both lenses and will achieve very similar results no matter what sensor you put it on .

... unless shutter shock affects the results, a possibility which they refuse to investigate.

They're shooting at 1/1000-1/2000s with EFCS so I doubt shutter shock has much effect.

Incorrect as to shutter speed used. They're shooting at 1/80 for the daylight ISO 200 studio scene shots, which is close to or within shutter shock range. The daylight ISO 400 shots are at 1/160, which is why for some of the older cameras that didn't have (effective) EFCS, the ISO 200 shots were sometimes blurrier than the ISO 400 shots.

 

[whumber]

They're shooting at 1/1000-1/2000s with EFCS so I doubt shutter shock has much effect.

Incorrect as to shutter speed used. They're shooting at 1/80 for the daylight ISO 200 studio scene shots, which is close to or within shutter shock range. The daylight ISO 400 shots are at 1/160, which is why for some of the older cameras that didn't have (effective) EFCS, the ISO 200 shots were sometimes blurrier than the ISO 400 shots.

By way of digression: after publishing our Panaleica 100-400 mm test we found out our results at the longest focal lengths have been questioned on many foreign websites. It was claimed that they were heavily understated because of vibrations of the mechanical shutter and it was suggested that a Panasonic body with an electronic shutter would make them higher. It wasn’t exactly true. Having very strong lamps in our editorial office we were able to reduce the exposure times even to 1/1000-1/2000 sec. and additionally we used an “anti-shock” option with a value as high as 15 seconds.

 

[whumber]

The point is the aperture choice of F/5.6 is below peak performance for both lenses and will achieve very similar results no matter what sensor you put it on .

... unless shutter shock affects the results, a possibility which they refuse to investigate.

They're shooting at 1/1000-1/2000s with EFCS so I doubt shutter shock has much effect.

Does the EPL1 even have real EFCS? I thought it only had the old 1/8 antishock lag. Even if it does, it doesn't entirely solve the problem, due to the 2nd curtain impact. It might not be visually noticeable, but could still affect measurements.

You're correct, it's a mechanical anti-shock treatment.

 

[knickerhawk]

Why does the G9 produce much better detail than the Oly EM 1.2?

They tested the G9 with the Nocticron 42.5mm f/1.2, and the Oly EM 1.2 was tested with the Oly 45mm 1.8.

A sharper lens produces more detail.

As I mentioned above at the aperture used there is negligible difference between these lenses



--
Jim Stirling

Of course they look the same on a E-PL1....far cry from a 20MP sensor with no low pass filter.

--
Amateur Photographer

The point is the aperture choice of F/5.6 is below peak performance for both lenses and will achieve very similar results no matter what sensor you put it on .

Nevertheless, there is a difference in sharpness at f/5.6 and it's greater the farther out from the center you go. This can be seen in the DXOMark sharpness profile charts.

Now were they both set at their optimal aperture on a 20mp sensor one would indeed expect a larger divergence of results. Why they use F/5.6 is of course the real question

And it's one that I've pressed DPR staff on previously. The response is that f/5.6 is the sharpest aperture setting based on their visual comparisons of test shots done at different apertures. They have never revealed how they go about the determination - i.e., how much they consider center sharpness vs. perimeter sharpness in making their determination. I have to call BS on the claim though, considering that virtually ALL cameras for all formats between mFT and fullframe have been found to be sharpest at f/5.6. That is a highly dubious finding that tends to disadvantage mFT cameras relative to the larger formats.

And I do think that issues like focus accuracy etc will have more impact than any differences in resolution at F/5.6 , the 45mm F/1.8 is no slouch

No slouch, but there IS a visible difference in the studio scene shots. Since the raw shots for the G9 aren't available yet, I've simply done a screen capture below. Note the clear vertical etching lines in the G9 vs. the other three cameras that were all taken with the Oly 45mm. Note the stronger color moire as well in the G9. Note also that the EM1ii slightly lags the other cameras shot with the 45mm, probably due to the unique blue channel interpolation used for the OSPDAF pixels.

Imaging resource have test images for both cameras using the excellent FT 50mm macro

--
Jim Stirling

 

[Advent1sam]

Link?

Some analysis or comments?

 

[knickerhawk]

They're shooting at 1/1000-1/2000s with EFCS so I doubt shutter shock has much effect.

Incorrect as to shutter speed used. They're shooting at 1/80 for the daylight ISO 200 studio scene shots, which is close to or within shutter shock range. The daylight ISO 400 shots are at 1/160, which is why for some of the older cameras that didn't have (effective) EFCS, the ISO 200 shots were sometimes blurrier than the ISO 400 shots.

By way of digression: after publishing our Panaleica 100-400 mm test we found out our results at the longest focal lengths have been questioned on many foreign websites. It was claimed that they were heavily understated because of vibrations of the mechanical shutter and it was suggested that a Panasonic body with an electronic shutter would make them higher. It wasn’t exactly true. Having very strong lamps in our editorial office we were able to reduce the exposure times even to 1/1000-1/2000 sec. and additionally we used an “anti-shock” option with a value as high as 15 seconds.

You apparently are talking about the Lenstip measurements. Everyone else in this subthread is talking about the DPR studio scene shots. (And don't get me started on the Lenstip review of the Panaleica 100-400mm lens!)

 

[whumber]

They're shooting at 1/1000-1/2000s with EFCS so I doubt shutter shock has much effect.

Incorrect as to shutter speed used. They're shooting at 1/80 for the daylight ISO 200 studio scene shots, which is close to or within shutter shock range. The daylight ISO 400 shots are at 1/160, which is why for some of the older cameras that didn't have (effective) EFCS, the ISO 200 shots were sometimes blurrier than the ISO 400 shots.

By way of digression: after publishing our Panaleica 100-400 mm test we found out our results at the longest focal lengths have been questioned on many foreign websites. It was claimed that they were heavily understated because of vibrations of the mechanical shutter and it was suggested that a Panasonic body with an electronic shutter would make them higher. It wasn’t exactly true. Having very strong lamps in our editorial office we were able to reduce the exposure times even to 1/1000-1/2000 sec. and additionally we used an “anti-shock” option with a value as high as 15 seconds.

You apparently are talking about the Lenstip measurements. Everyone else in this subthread is talking about the DPR studio scene shots. (And don't get me started on the Lenstip review of the Panaleica 100-400mm lens!)

The conversation thread I was responding to was specifically about the Lenstip results.

 

[knickerhawk]

They're shooting at 1/1000-1/2000s with EFCS so I doubt shutter shock has much effect.

Incorrect as to shutter speed used. They're shooting at 1/80 for the daylight ISO 200 studio scene shots, which is close to or within shutter shock range. The daylight ISO 400 shots are at 1/160, which is why for some of the older cameras that didn't have (effective) EFCS, the ISO 200 shots were sometimes blurrier than the ISO 400 shots.

By way of digression: after publishing our Panaleica 100-400 mm test we found out our results at the longest focal lengths have been questioned on many foreign websites. It was claimed that they were heavily understated because of vibrations of the mechanical shutter and it was suggested that a Panasonic body with an electronic shutter would make them higher. It wasn’t exactly true. Having very strong lamps in our editorial office we were able to reduce the exposure times even to 1/1000-1/2000 sec. and additionally we used an “anti-shock” option with a value as high as 15 seconds.

You apparently are talking about the Lenstip measurements. Everyone else in this subthread is talking about the DPR studio scene shots. (And don't get me started on the Lenstip review of the Panaleica 100-400mm lens!)

The conversation thread I was responding to was specifically about the Lenstip results.

Actually the conversation thread has been about the DPR studio scene test shots for the G9, but the lenstip charts were referenced by samtheman2014 as evidence of little difference between the two lenses at f/5.6 (the aperture setting used in DPR shots). The ambiguity was introduced by TomFid in his reference to "they refuse". He can clarify if he wants as to whether he was referring to DPR or Lenstip (see excerpt from your original post below). I interpreted his response as being in reference to DPR refusing to investigate the impact of shutter shock in its studio scene results since the DPR ISO 200 shots have long been known to be in the shutter shock danger zone.

It's no big deal, but I just wanted it to be clear that here on DPR and with reference to the G9 and other comparison studio scene test images being referred to in this thread, shutter shock (and the mitigation of EFCS) are real variables to consider with respect to at least the ISO 200 shots.

The point is the aperture choice of F/5.6 is below peak performance for both lenses and will achieve very similar results no matter what sensor you put it on .

... unless shutter shock affects the results, a possibility which they refuse to investigate.

They're shooting at 1/1000-1/2000s with EFCS so I doubt shutter shock has much effect.

 

[photofisher]

Not much to do with the lens. If you want to see a good comparison look at the Pen F vs the G9

You know, I think you and JIm are right the more I look at it. Looking at the other ISOs and the RAWs and JPEGS, it seems there are mild focusing and inconsistentent errors throughout the E-m-! ii, the Pen F, and GH5 galleries. For example, the E-M1ii RAWs at ISO 400 look on par with the G9...while the GH5 takes a turn at looking soft. Using the focusing rail must be the big difference, and not the lens.....at least in the center of the image. The nocticron may still improve things at the edge a bit.

There just can't be a big difference between these sensors in terms of resolution (or anything else for that matter).