[slackercruster]

I'd love to have a system in 4/3. None of them run on AA batts, so screw them. I ONLY buy cams that run on 2 , 3 or 4 AA's.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Based on DXOMark, the Nikon J1 actually delivers *better* image quality than the GF3:
DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side

Sigh.

That is not what dxomark says.

First, the dxomark aggregated score is not an absolute indicator of "image quality delivered". It is just a score used to rank sensors. "Image quality" in itself is a product of:

1. a camera that has both a good sensor and features that allow you to exploit that sensor
2. a good lens
3. a good photographer that can use the package

It is not sufficient to have a good sensor if you do not have the features, lens, and skill to produce images of high quality. What the sensor is capable of recording and what images you may be able to produce for it to record are two entirely different things.

Now that this is out of the way, let's take a closer look at the Nikon 1 system and see if its sensor is really almost as good as an MFT sensor. Then we'll come back to image quality achievable with it.

Intentionally or unintentionally, you seem to have picked an MFT camera that has scored lower than other MFT cameras. So let me add a third one - the E-PL2.

We get:

J1: Agg score 56, Color Depth 21.5 bits, DR 11 Ev, High ISO 372
GF3: Agg score 50, Color Depth 20.6 bits, DR 10.1 Ev, High ISO 459
EPL2: Agg score 55, Color Depth 21.4, DR 10.2 Ev, High ISO 573

If these numbers are puzzling, I explained them here. The only one that holistically looks at image quality is the High ISO score, which represents how high you can push ISO and still maintain a certain image quality bar - the Nikon 1 drops out of the competition first, then the GF3, then the EPL2, which has almost a stop advantage over the J1 - that is a big deal, as it is similar to the difference between K-5 and K-7, and based on such difference others argue that MFT is not really matching APS-C sensors. We'll see how the difference looks after dxomark tests the E-M5 - that will be interesting.

The J1 looks better in the aggregated score than it really is for the following reasons, which are interesting to examine - one is a true advantage and the others are just being technicalities of how the dxomark score is computed:

- J1 has slightly better DR - that is a real advantage - it is its only advantage
- the first two dxomark scores (Color Depth and DR) are taken from lowest ISO - The Nikon J1 gets a slightly better Color Depth score because at ISO 100 it barely edges over the MFT sensors at ISO 160(GF3)/200(EPL2). In reality, the MFT cameras have an advantage in this area (almost a stop for the EPL2) but this score doesn't tell you that
- the third dxomark score tells the more accurate story because it takes all attributes into account and looks at how performance changes at high ISO - that is the first score one should look at

So what we have in the Nikon 1 system is a small sensor that performs pretty well for its size, but cannot break its inherent limitations. Furthermore, the Nikon 1 system is paired with slow lenses - the fastest 1 lens is f/2.8 while on MFT you have lenses as fast as f/0.95 paired with a larger sensor. That means an even larger image quality difference, not to mention DOF control.

Almost the same quality as MFT? I have no doubt the Nikon 1 system can produce beautiful images. I get great IQ from my Panasonic Lumix. But that does not mean my Lumix has almost the same IQ as the MFT system or as the Nikon 1 system.

Here's a sample of the Lumix IQ, btw. On a good day, it's not easy to beat:


Lumix IQ at its best

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

As for low light performance - meh, I am pretty happy with it:

Meh, I am pretty happy with my Lumix too for low light. Must be the magic of that Leica glass

[farhagh]

Based on DXOMark, the Nikon J1 actually delivers *better* image quality than the GF3:

As for low light performance - meh, I am pretty happy with it:

Well, I believe by low light performance we mean more high ISO rather than long exposure, which does not seem something Nikon 1 shines at. Even the DxOMark confirms that smaller sensor of Nikon is behind. That is fine as I expect the best m43 be behind the best APS-C and that is the reason I will keep the K-5 my primary tool even if I add a smaller sensor kit.

[farhagh]

Sigh.

That is not what dxomark says.

First, the dxomark aggregated score is not an absolute indicator of "image quality delivered". It is just a score used to rank sensors. "Image quality" in itself is a product of:

1. a camera that has both a good sensor and features that allow you to exploit that sensor
2. a good lens
3. a good photographer that can use the package

It is not sufficient to have a good sensor if you do not have the features, lens, and skill to produce images of high quality. What the sensor is capable of recording and what images you may be able to produce for it to record are two entirely different things.

Now that this is out of the way, let's take a closer look at the Nikon 1 system and see if its sensor is really almost as good as an MFT sensor. Then we'll come back to image quality achievable with it.

Intentionally or unintentionally, you seem to have picked an MFT camera that has scored lower than other MFT cameras. So let me add a third one - the E-PL2.

We get:

J1: Agg score 56, Color Depth 21.5 bits, DR 11 Ev, High ISO 372
GF3: Agg score 50, Color Depth 20.6 bits, DR 10.1 Ev, High ISO 459
EPL2: Agg score 55, Color Depth 21.4, DR 10.2 Ev, High ISO 573

If these numbers are puzzling, I explained them here. The only one that holistically looks at image quality is the High ISO score, which represents how high you can push ISO and still maintain a certain image quality bar - the Nikon 1 drops out of the competition first, then the GF3, then the EPL2, which has almost a stop advantage over the J1 - that is a big deal, as it is similar to the difference between K-5 and K-7, and based on such difference others argue that MFT is not really matching APS-C sensors. We'll see how the difference looks after dxomark tests the E-M5 - that will be interesting.

The J1 looks better in the aggregated score than it really is for the following reasons, which are interesting to examine - one is a true advantage and the others are just being technicalities of how the dxomark score is computed:

- J1 has slightly better DR - that is a real advantage - it is its only advantage
- the first two dxomark scores (Color Depth and DR) are taken from lowest ISO - The Nikon J1 gets a slightly better Color Depth score because at ISO 100 it barely edges over the MFT sensors at ISO 160(GF3)/200(EPL2). In reality, the MFT cameras have an advantage in this area (almost a stop for the EPL2) but this score doesn't tell you that
- the third dxomark score tells the more accurate story because it takes all attributes into account and looks at how performance changes at high ISO - that is the first score one should look at

So what we have in the Nikon 1 system is a small sensor that performs pretty well for its size, but cannot break its inherent limitations. Furthermore, the Nikon 1 system is paired with slow lenses - the fastest 1 lens is f/2.8 while on MFT you have lenses as fast as f/0.95 paired with a larger sensor. That means an even larger image quality difference, not to mention DOF control.

Almost the same quality as MFT? I have no doubt the Nikon 1 system can produce beautiful images. I get great IQ from my Panasonic Lumix. But that does not mean my Lumix has almost the same IQ as the MFT system or as the Nikon 1 system.

Here's a sample of the Lumix IQ, btw. On a good day, it's not easy to beat:


Lumix IQ at its best

Nice post Laurentiu, and nice shot too :○)

I guess in general it's reasonable to expect FF > APS-C > m43 > Nikon 1 > Pentax Q
The question for each of us will be how much we wish to compromise/spend for each one. That is the balance point which will define "good enough" for us. For me, and till last year the m43 was not "good enough" to put money on, and now it seems to be (at least as a second system). It will be different for everybody at any time for sure.

[Aegon]

µ4/3 has tradeoffs providing advantages and disadvantages. Here are some that matter most to me:

AF Speed: a modern body with a recent lens will lock focus in half a heartbeat
AF Accuracy: face detect + nearest eye focus = amazing. I can swing my camera at my hip, point in the right direction, half press the shutter quickly, and get the shot. And every shot is correctly focused where I want. This approach sounds undisciplined or haphazard, but really it gets results and I like the angles. Your workflow may be different, but accurate AF without worrying about point selection opens doors for me.
Size: E-PM1 + 45mm ƒ/1.8 fits in my jacket pocket with room to spare. Correspondingly light, too.
IQ: better than you probably think

DR: Not enough
Sensitivity: Not enough

The last two are "cons". But these are not a limitation of the format, but rather the sensors. Time will eventually fix this. Until then, sensor performance resembles a K-7, which is to say that it works well enough in good enough light.

The bottom line for me is that most of my needs are met by µ4/3. In some circumstances, the K-5 is necessary. I'd like a D800 just like everybody, but it isn't in my current budget and it wouldn't often make a difference to my photos.

Everything related to cameras involves trade-offs. The balance struck by µ4/3 falls closer to "very good" rather than "perfect". Next year's bodies will have greater DR and sensitivity, and focus will be measured against the beats of a hummingbird's wings. Despite this, µ4/3 generally has a reputation for being "too small" or "slow" or "too compromised". I disagree.

[Christine Tham]

Sigh.

That is not what dxomark says.

Double sigh.

I was talking about the image quality of the camera bodies, which is exactly what dxomark is measuring.

If you recall, my point was that the Nikon J1 (body) has almost the same image quality as m4/3, but with a smaller size. I compared it the a GF3 because the only m4/3 body I would be interested in would be a GF3 or a GF5 based on size. The J1 is a better body than the GF3.

Now if you were to compare any m4/3 body with a NEX-5N (which is around the same size, in fact smaller than most m4/3 bodies) ... For reference the NEX-5N scores are:
NEX-5N: Agg score 77, Color Depth 23.6, DR 12.7 Ev, High ISO 1079

As for lenses, I use M-mount lenses on my NEX-5N. I understand M-mount lenses can also be used with m4/3 (as well as the Nikon 1), but without focus peaking, they are a lot less usable on the other bodies.

Now the last variable that you listed - photographer skill...

Here's a sample of the Lumix IQ, btw. On a good day, it's not easy to beat:


Lumix IQ at its best

I am sorry, but it's hard to judge quality as the white petals of the flower are slighly over-saturated, and also the photo is at a very low resolution.

But as a comparison, here is a photo taken on the Nikon J1 on a rainy day:


Here is another one, taken on the same day:

[Christine Tham]

Meh, I am pretty happy with my Lumix too for low light. Must be the magic of that Leica glass

Again, forgive me, but I don't quite appreciate why you posted those photos. There is almost no low light detail in any of the photos, and the light sources in each photo have swamped out the dynamic range.

Also, I think the "Leica" branded lenses that Panasonic sells for m4/3 are not "real" Leica lenses - they are designed and manufactured by Panasonic.

Here is an example of low light detail, captured on a "real" Leica lens - the Summicron-M 50mm - on a NEX-5N:


Now if I were to look at the 1:1 pixel view of the above image, I can discern individual threads in the lace in the background, and to the rght of the "L" is a LED screen - I can discern the individual pixels of the screen :-)

[Duh_Vinci]

Just a little food for thought about MFT in general from a commercial photographer:

Micro 4/3rds cameras in a professional environment...

Regards,
D

[kswier]

I have been considering replacing my k200-D with a OM-D sometime in the future, so I am very interested in this thread. I will probably end up waiting a year or two for the prices to come down, though (and to see what else comes out on the market, would like a weatherproof camera powered by android ). I also need to try the viewfinder to determine if it is acceptable.

It seems to me that most cameras (that have a good lens attached/built in) can take good pictures of landscapes when there is adequate light. And all of the large sensor cameras can do a pretty good job in low light (i.e. pretty good iso 1600 shots). The largest disadvantage I see in the smaller sensors is the difference in depth of field. I have looked at the difference between APS-C and micro 4/3, and it is actually quite small. Furthermore, you can get small and fast lenses for micro 4/3 (i.e. da40 vs. Panasonic 20mm).

In my mind, the IQ of each system should not be the determining factor on which camera you buy. Buy the camera that fits your needs. If you travel a lot and value portability, perhaps micro 4/3 is your best bet (or one of the other mirror-less options). If you value an optical viewfinder, stick with a DSLR. If you value clean looking pictures that are lit by a single candle or the ability to achieve a shallow depth of field, perhaps you should get the largest sensor you can afford. In the end most of the cameras being discussed in this thread will give beautiful images if placed in the right hands (i.e. not my hands ). Even my k200D produces beautiful images (even though it is an old camera), which is why I am reluctant to drop a bunch of money on an upgrade.

[farhagh]

Just a little food for thought about MFT in general from a commercial photographer
D

Well; I guess this is the very same link I started the tread with, but may be you did not read the original post.
In fact I would love to have more comments from the people running both of these system, which do not seem to be a lot. For sure if I wanted to study about the m43 or compare it with APS-C this was not the best place.
Anyway, if I ever did so, will remember to come back and share my idea with others.

[Christine Tham]

Well, I believe by low light performance we mean more high ISO rather than long exposure, which does not seem something Nikon 1 shines at.

That shot was handheld at ISO1600.

The DXOMarks for the Nikon 1 and GF3 show that high ISO between the two are roughly comparable. Yes, the Nikon 1 is slightly lower, but the difference is insignificant compared to high ISO performance on the K-5 or NEX-5N.

And the 12Mpixel sensor used on many Panasonic and Olympus bodies is known for being noisy.

The point is that the m4/3 bodies appear to be under-performing compared to the Nikon 1 and the K-5/NEX-5N/D7000 taking sensor size into account.

However, this isn't an inherent fault of m4/3 - just current implementations. I was quite keen on the GX1 at one stage, but then reviews show that it is not significantly better in image quality than the GF3, despite the better sensor (and higher DXOMark scores). And there is no point in investing in Olympus until they sort out their financial difficulties.

[farhagh]

That shot was handheld at ISO1600.

The DXOMarks for the Nikon 1 and GF3 show that high ISO between the two are roughly comparable. Yes, the Nikon 1 is slightly lower, but the difference is insignificant compared to high ISO performance on the K-5 or NEX-5N.

And the 12Mpixel sensor used on many Panasonic and Olympus bodies is known for being noisy.

The point is that the m4/3 bodies appear to be under-performing compared to the Nikon 1 and the K-5/NEX-5N/D7000 taking sensor size into account.

However, this isn't an inherent fault of m4/3 - just current implementations. I was quite keen on the GX1 at one stage, but then reviews show that it is not significantly better in image quality than the GF3, despite the better sensor (and higher DXOMark scores). And there is no point in investing in Olympus until they sort out their financial difficulties.

Christine,

By mentioning the high ISO I did not mean the sample; I was talking about the DxOMarks score for the Nikon 1 vs OM-D E-M5 which is expected to be better than the GH2.

I agree with you on Panasonic 12MP sensor. That was the reason I just started paying attention to m43 after reading about the 16MP sensor in Oly E-M5 (which might be the same or a tweaked version of GH2). If performance of this one is not significantly better than the so called 12Mp I do not see the point of investing in an Oly system either.

[er1kksen]

All this somewhat irrelevant sensor chat aside, I'd like to argue about cameras too, and the thing that's irked me most in this whole thread was the second post, particularly here:

"Wide AOVs are a real problem..."

Are we forgetting the 7-14mm and 9-18mm? The 7-14mm is a little pricey but optically, you've got to go whole hog and get Nikon's venerated 14-24mm plus an FX body to match it. The 9-18mm is extremely affordable for what it offers as compared to APS-C offerings with similar AOV, and is no slouch in performance either. On top of that, the kit and normal zooms go just as wide as the ones you'll find for APS-C.

That was a common criticism of the 4/3 system, however... when it first hit the market back in 2003 or whatever. Now I'd rather buy m4/3 for ultrawide than APS-C.

I'm not into ultrawide, though. That 45mm f1.9, however, often seems to be calling my name softly in the cool night air... suffice to say, I find the 4/3 system to be more than just "fine" for quite a lot more than "snapshots." Even the 7mp first-gen-panasonic-sensor E-330 I was using back in 2007. Ever since LR3 came out, why bother aching about a couple high-ISO points on DXOmark? Or bracketed bursts for DR? I can't think of many landscape shots where a bracketed burst is too slow, or too many action shots where a few blowouts in the sky are even relevant to the subject. Maybe fine-art birding. Pretty narrow market, grab a D800 and knock yourself out.

The E-M5 seems like a sweet camera. Get one from a place with a good return policy and see if you like it. I wouldn't rely on advice you'll find here unless you're interested in something with a K-mount.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

I was talking about the image quality of the camera bodies, which is exactly what dxomark is measuring.

Actually, dxomark just measures sensor performance - they don't measure anything about "image quality of the camera bodies" - there is no such thing.

And as far as sensor performance goes, I explained already why the Nikon 1 system was not measured to be better or even close to the MFT system. So let's leave dxomark out of it, because they don't support your argument.

Again, forgive me, but I don't quite appreciate why you posted those photos.

Because they are as useful as your low resolution samples for evaluating image quality. What exactly do you think your shots are demonstrating? Any of those low resolution images can be taken with a P&S - that was my point. The smiley was supposed to give you a hint.

And did you actually think I was proud about the Lumix lens being a Leica, so that telling me that it's not a real one but you are using a real Leica lens is going to make me fall in awe? Thanks for describing what you were seeing in that Leica shot at 100%, rather than including a crop - that was priceless.