Sensors Comparison Part II

[Yannis1976]

Hi,

I always had the curiosity to check a Fuji sensor and how this performs vs the m43 in both high ISO and WB/colors. I recently found a used XE1 (2012 body, 150€) and decided to grab it and use it with my manual Nikon E lenses. Please be aware, this is not a system comparison, just a sensor one and also involves a 1" sensor.

My test consists of ISO 3200, 6400 and 12800 and takes only the RAW files from Panny and Fuji mainly because of the dual image capability of LR. I used the 50mm/1.7 with both my respective adapters at my XE1 and GX8. The test scene is an old Canon film camera close to an electric lamp.

RAW 3200 GX8 vs XE1. What I see is almost the same IQ in terms of ISO noise. The different FL you see is due to the different crop factor. However the colors and the WB seem to be more accurate in the Fuji file.

RAW 5000 GX8 vs XE1. The XE1 file looks a bit better, but the GX8 is more zoomed and maybe details are also more profound. Again the Fuji colors and WB seem to be better.

RAW ISO 6400 GX8 vs XE1. The XE1 does look better but not by a huge extent and I think the closer FL in the m43 may show more details and more noise.

RAW 12800 GX8 vs JPEG XE1. The difference here is more evident, but the comparison is not fair. Fuji doesn't allow you to shoot at 12800 RAW, only JPEG. For me what is more impressive is the WB/colors of the XE1 vs my GX8 at 12800.

This is the SOOC file from GX8 at 12800. NR: -3

And here are also some 1" SOOC samples from an RX100/3. Colors are not perfect not because of the Sony files (RAW look quite accurate) but mainly because of my Creative Style choice in the camera.

ISO 1600

ISO 3200

ISO 5000 and...

ISO 6400. If someone is not pixel peeping, the JPEG SOOC can be quite decent!

Finally here is an Auto ISO file with a native PL lens just to test the WB again:

WB and blue color seem better in this one (C:+3, S:+3, NR:-3, S:+3)

So, what I think is that ISO performance is closer than what I expected between m43 and Fuji APSC at least up to ISO 6400. The m43 20MP holds quite well vs the larger Fuji sensor and I am sure that with proper pp the difference can be insignificant. Even the smaller 1" is also quite decent on the JPEG files! So if high ISO performance is what you are looking then sensor size seems not to be so important at least with those sensors and up to ISO 6400.

However the Fuji WB and colors are indeed a bit more accurate at least with those manual lenses (if it plays any role). Also the 12800 Fuji JPEG file has a very acceptable IQ.

Finally, although this is not a system comparison (my view is that m43 is most complete mirrorless system), its important to note that the Fuji XE1 body has a proper Auto ISO implementation where one can set the max ISO and the minimum shutter speed.

Now if anyone wants to give me some advice about how to optimize the GX8 WB and colors it would be most welcome!

--
Yannis
https://www.flickr.com/photos/127079204@N06/
https://www.viewbug.com/member/Yannis76

 

[Mark Thornton]

I have found the colours using my native m4/3 lenses to be much more accurate than any of the adapted lenses which I have tried. So unless your primary intent is the use of adapted lenses, they don't form a useful method of comparison.

Mark

 

[Badwater]

Nice test and samples of the ISO. Seems the APSC 1.5 crop is not much different than the MFT 2x crop in height of the shot.

As for WB, the only tip I can give you is set custom WT to a grey tabby cat, they have the best custom WB under any lighting conditions. Avoid any orange or Calico cats, they make terrible WB unless you do cinema color look for video, then they will work.

 

[Yannis1976]

Nice test and samples of the ISO. Seems the APSC 1.5 crop is not much different than the MFT 2x crop in height of the shot.
As for WB, the only tip I can give you is set custom WT to a grey tabby cat, they have the best custom WB under any lighting conditions. Avoid any orange or Calico cats, they make terrible WB unless you do cinema color look for video, then they will work.

I used the same position for the camera instead of trying to get the same image result. Now, I am not sure if it was the best, maybe getting the same result from both cameras would be better.

 

[gary0319]

I think your 12,800 image from the GX8 would clean up quite nicely. I think A lot of how a high ISO looks is dependent on the lighting. Dull, muted lighting may be more difficult to get decent results from an m4/3 than perhaps a larger sensor. Of course, a lot also depends on the sensor generation.

This shot below is from the Pen F that is purported to have a similar, if not the same, sensor as the GX8. Good museum lighting, contrasty subject, Raw conversion in Olympus OV3, noise reduction and further tweaks in Lightroom produced a pretty nice result, IMO.

 

[VideoPic]

Hello Yannis

Interesting comparison, thanks for doing the effort. I am also more and more convinced the differences in day to day IQ is not that big between M43 up to FF.

I think differences in focussing speed, functionality and specific sensor or camera strengths will play a much bigger role in the future. Example: Focus stacking, Composite and Live Time - the photographer will make his or hers decisions based on what they do as a hobby or job.

Best

Siegfried

 

[Rail2trail]

I think the zoomed in image is skewing your results. If you compared more similar images you would likely notice the impact more readily. You can get a sense of this by checking the corners and avoiding areas of sharp focus.

This isn’t specific to any format, btw.

M4/3 doesn’t perform as well as larger formats wrt noise because...well, science...but so what? If you don’t shoot above your comfort level and don’t shoot comparisons as a matter of course then it really doesn’t matter.

I’ve been shooting football/soccer this season for a local club and though I’ve brought two systems every game, I’ve relied entirely on the g9 for all the outdoor games after the first. Last weekend ended the season with an indoor match and I had to switch to the d500 because shooting at 3200 on the g9 was not clean enough, but was fine on the Nikon. YMMV.

 

[Yannis1976]

The fact that images were not the same was also bothering me, so I decided to shot another round, this time ISO 6400 and 12800 JPEG only:

ISO 6400

ISO 6400 GX8 (NR:0)

ISO 6400 XE1

ISO 6400 RX100/3

ISO 6400 Olympus TG5 (its unfair for Olympus, but wanted to show that there is a significant handicap in smaller sensors)

Again the XE1 has a slight advantage, but the more impressive thing is that under these difficult conditions, the XE1 is the only one of the 4 cameras achieving a correct WB (white is white on the vases and the metal color of the camera is more silver than the others).

--
Yannis
https://www.flickr.com/photos/127079204@N06/
https://www.viewbug.com/member/Yannis76

 

[Yannis1976]

And here are the 12800 samples:

GX8 ISO 12800 (NR:0)

XE1 ISO 12800

RX100/3 ISO 12800

The WB, colors and IQ at 12800 are definitely better on the old XE1, but on all 3 of them special pp would be much better than the SOOC JPEG...

--
Yannis
https://www.flickr.com/photos/127079204@N06/
https://www.viewbug.com/member/Yannis76

 

[s_grins]

You did not compare sensors, you did compare photos. There are many steps between data produced by sensor and final photo you've posted as a prove. There is one:

If you think that sensors produce RAW, you're mistaken: processing engine of camera makes a big impact on the data from sensor before this data becomes RAW file. (I guess that the difference between raw data and RAW file understandable)

That is why I do not think it makes any sense to continue

 

[Mark Thornton]

Where was the focus in the RX100 sample?

 

[Yannis1976]

Where was the focus in the RX100 sample?

It stayed at home, never came to the party apologies but was to lazy to correct it.

 

[Yannis1976]

You did not compare sensors, you did compare photos. There are many steps between data produced by sensor and final photo you've posted as a prove. There is one:

If you think that sensors produce RAW, you're mistaken: processing engine of camera makes a big impact on the data from sensor before this data becomes RAW file. (I guess that the difference between raw data and RAW file understandable)

That is why I do not think it makes any sense to continue

My friend, you might be totally right. It was just a comparison I made for myself and thought to share it. I agree the sample is very limited, On the other hand we can’t deny what our eyes see. At least at these shots, up to iso 6400 m43 shots are not that inferior to Fuji.

 

[s_grins]

You did not compare sensors, you did compare photos. There are many steps between data produced by sensor and final photo you've posted as a prove. There is one:

If you think that sensors produce RAW, you're mistaken: processing engine of camera makes a big impact on the data from sensor before this data becomes RAW file. (I guess that the difference between raw data and RAW file understandable)

That is why I do not think it makes any sense to continue

My friend, you might be totally right. It was just a comparison I made for myself and thought to share it. I agree the sample is very limited, On the other hand we can’t deny what our eyes see. At least at these shots, up to iso 6400 m43 shots are not that inferior to Fuji.

Well, my friend, another practitioner can take his photos, process them in his way, look at them with his own eyes, and come to opposite to yours conclusion.

That is why I do not think there is any sense... and pointless from the beginning, with just one exception: when someone has inferiority complex.

 

[Yannis1976]

You did not compare sensors, you did compare photos. There are many steps between data produced by sensor and final photo you've posted as a prove. There is one:

If you think that sensors produce RAW, you're mistaken: processing engine of camera makes a big impact on the data from sensor before this data becomes RAW file. (I guess that the difference between raw data and RAW file understandable)

That is why I do not think it makes any sense to continue

My friend, you might be totally right. It was just a comparison I made for myself and thought to share it. I agree the sample is very limited, On the other hand we can’t deny what our eyes see. At least at these shots, up to iso 6400 m43 shots are not that inferior to Fuji.

Well, my friend, another practitioner can take his photos, process them in his way, look at them with his own eyes, and come to opposite to yours conclusion.

That is why I do not think there is any sense... and pointless from the beginning, with just one exception: when someone has inferiority complex.

It was Sooc so no intervention from me, but you think only RAW would be better?

 

[s_grins]

You did not compare sensors, you did compare photos. There are many steps between data produced by sensor and final photo you've posted as a prove. There is one:

If you think that sensors produce RAW, you're mistaken: processing engine of camera makes a big impact on the data from sensor before this data becomes RAW file. (I guess that the difference between raw data and RAW file understandable)

That is why I do not think it makes any sense to continue

My friend, you might be totally right. It was just a comparison I made for myself and thought to share it. I agree the sample is very limited, On the other hand we can’t deny what our eyes see. At least at these shots, up to iso 6400 m43 shots are not that inferior to Fuji.

Well, my friend, another practitioner can take his photos, process them in his way, look at them with his own eyes, and come to opposite to yours conclusion.

That is why I do not think there is any sense... and pointless from the beginning, with just one exception: when someone has inferiority complex.

It was Sooc so no intervention from me, but you think only RAW would be better?

From the very beginning you have stated "it was RAW". So imagine another person processes RAW files with different hardware. Is it possible? Will it deliver different results?

Please, you have no need to response.