[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Now I'd rather buy m4/3 for ultrawide than APS-C.

The nice thing about the MFT format vs APS-C is that it was designed as a full format system, not as a smaller format introduction to higher format cameras. So there are less compromises. I expect that now, with MILC systems designed from scratch around a new mount and an APS-C sensor, the situation may change for the APS-C format as well, but so far, MFT has a good headstart in building a lens lineup.

[Rondec]

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.

The hardest thing with micro four thirds is depth of field (that is getting narrow depth of field). The whole equivalency thing is killer. The 45 f1.9 shoots like a 90 mm f4 lens would on film/full frame.

Anyway, I agree with you and the others that the sensors are fine. Are they as good as the top of the line full frames? No, but just about any camera released in the last five years is capable of taking decent shots if you know what you are doing.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

The hardest thing with micro four thirds is depth of field (that is getting narrow depth of field).

It is not at all hard. I use my lenses stopped down most of the time on MFT and it is not because they're not usable at wider apertures, but because I normally want more DOF, not less.

The whole equivalency thing is killer. The 45 f1.9 shoots like a 90 mm f4 lens would on film/full frame.

That is why Voigtlander is putting out f/0.95 lenses for MFT - to close arguments like this one

[Christine Tham]

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.

It is rumoured that the 16Mp sensor in the new Olympus is the same as the sensor in the G3 and GX1.

If so, then I am not sure it will be significantly better, but having said that I have not tried the camera.

I have tried both the G3 and GX1 and taking sample shots and compared them to the GF3 and the Nikon J1.

What I can say is that despite the differences in the dxomark scores (which as I mentioned before I don't consider to be significant anyway) I was really hard pressed to see any appreciable difference in quality between the 16Mp sensor and the 12Mp sensor against the J1.

Yes the J1 is slightly noisier, and the G3 and GX1 slightly cleaner, but it wasn't a world of difference compared to the high ISO quality of the NEX-5N or the K5 for example.

I also tried the E-PL3 and the E-P3. What I really disliked about the two Olympus models I tried was the LCD screen - it wasn't as good as the other cameras and really looked washed out in daylight.

[Rondec]

It is not at all hard. I use my lenses stopped down most of the time on MFT and it is not because they're not usable at wider apertures, but because I normally want more DOF, not less.



That is why Voigtlander is putting out f/0.95 lenses for MFT - to close arguments like this one

I guess. It is a pretty expensive way to get a 35mm f2 equivalent. For landscape photographers, narrow depth of field isn't a big deal (although most seem to use full frame anyway -- probably to avoid diffraction effects you find with smaller formats when you stop down).

Once you use a 0.95 lens, though, you lose the size benefit of using four thirds, though...

[Christine Tham]

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.

Forgive me for being so dumb as to not appreciate your sarcasm. Given your earlier post of "Lumix IQ at its best" etc. (no smileys) there I had naturally assumed your follow on post was elaborating on the same point. My apologies.

However, I do have to point out that it is possible to compare image quality even with low resolution samples. Even at web resolution, my sample I think demonstrates (sufficiently to me at least) an ability to resolve micro contrast at low light levels, which your images didn't (not saying that the camera wasn't capable of it, just that the images didn't really showcase the camera ability).

It is not necessary to always show 1:1 crops to demonstrate image quality, that's why I tend to avoid it. For example, in the photo I showed, it is clear that there is a lot of detail even downsized. If I had taken that same photo with a compact camera, it would not have shown the same level of detail even when downsized.

As for there being no such thing as "image quality of the camera bodies" I'm afraid we'll have to disagree. If all dxomark was measuring was sensor quality, then all cameras sharing the same sensor will have the same scores. They don't. And forgive me if I didn't respond to your "explanation" of dxomark scoring system. I don't agree with your explanation, but there's no point arguing over that.

[Christine Tham]

Once you use a 0.95 lens, though, you lose the size benefit of using four thirds, though...

I don't think that Voigtlander lens is very big, not compared to DSLR lenses anyway.

Funnily enough I tend to side with Laurentiu here.

I'm not a believer in the "equivalency" concept - it's an attempt to compares apples and oranges by painting an apple orange and poking dimple marks on it.

Shallow DOF is over-rated - I tend to stop down (although less often than I used to in the film days) fairly often. I prefer to work from first principles - which is to get shallow DOF, either get really close or use a long lens. That works on any camera, even compacts.

One of the reasons I was thinking of buying m4/3 was to share my M mount lenses across to a new sensor form factor. M lenses aren't very long (the longest I have is 135mm) - on the smaller m4/3 sensor size that would be a decent long lens.

However, I gave up on the idea because there is no m4/3 body with focus peaking (apart from my concerns about image quality already expressed in this thread).

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

I guess. It is a pretty expensive way to get a 35mm f2 equivalent.

Well, a FF camera is expensive too. And on APS-C it is not easy to find a good 24/1.4.

Once you use a 0.95 lens, though, you lose the size benefit of using four thirds, though...

Depends on what you thought the benefit was An equivalent APS-C or FF combo would be even larger and heavier.

It is rumoured that the 16Mp sensor in the new Olympus is the same as the sensor in the G3 and GX1.

That was the original rumor, but Olympus statements and user reports hint to Olympus perhaps using a different manufacturer than Panasonic. dxomark results will tell us more. They just reviewed the G1X today - I hope they do the E-M5 next unless they go through the XPro1 before that.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Given your earlier post of "Lumix IQ at its best" etc. (no smileys) there I had naturally assumed your follow on post was elaborating on the same point.

That post was not about Lumix IQ at its best - it was about image quality and dxomark scores and at the end I pointed out that good looking small samples can be produced by any camera. You just picked on that last part.

Even at web resolution, my sample I think demonstrates (sufficiently to me at least) an ability to resolve micro contrast at low light levels, which your images didn't

I think that is the crucial part. You know your image at 100% so you may be happy with it even at low size. But I and others cannot extrapolate quality from small images. The only thing where the Nikon 1 could show a useful feature in small samples is if you demonstrated shots with thin DOF (something I cannot fake with a P&S even at small size), but anything else is hard to compare.

As I said already, I know the Lumix is bested by the Q, the Nikon 1, etc. But it is "almost" as good if all we care about is sharing such small samples.

If all dxomark was measuring was sensor quality, then all cameras sharing the same sensor will have the same scores.

In theory, yes, but in practice there are no two cameras sharing the same sensor. They share different versions of a sensor, but that is not the same sensor - check the sensor specifications on dxomark and you will see that many of the sensors that people assume are the same are in fact quite different. The D7000, K-5, and NEX-5N, for example, are assumed to have the same sensor, but they don't - their sensors don't even have the same number of photosites or the same pixel pitch:

NEX-5N / K-5 / D7000
=================
Pixel pitch: 4.75 / 4.81 / 4.73
Sensor photodetectors: 16.14 / 16.08 / 16.37

I've been looking for several years at dxomark data and I don't remember seeing two cameras that shared a sensor with the same specs. Don't you think this is actually the reason for the differences between them? That they are not the same in the first place?

dxomark itself describes what they are testing:

DxOMark provides four scores showing camera sensor image quality performance

All sensor scores reflect only the RAW sensor performance of a camera body.

They never say "body performance", they say "sensor performance" or "sensor performance of a camera body".

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

One of the reasons I was thinking of buying m4/3 was to share my M mount lenses across to a new sensor form factor. M lenses aren't very long (the longest I have is 135mm) - on the smaller m4/3 sensor size that would be a decent long lens.

However, I gave up on the idea because there is no m4/3 body with focus peaking (apart from my concerns about image quality already expressed in this thread).

Unless you are shooting moving subjects (doesn't seem the case from most of the samples you shared), focus peaking isn't something you need to have for focusing accurately - the magnified view will work perfectly well.

Funnily, use of legacy lenses is my main reason for still looking for a secondary system other than MFT. I purchased lenses for use with APS-C and perhaps FF.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

As long as you get super close to your subject.

Just as close as you need to get with an f/1.4 lens on your APS-C camera.

Here are a few samples that aren't even taken at very fast apertures.

The first one is taken at f/2.8:



Again, to not get the ball rolling on artistic criticism, the point of these images is simply to demonstrate the DOF you can get on MFT.

The next one is taken at f/4:



You hardly need very fast lenses for thin DOF effects. Equivalence is misleading because even on FF you wouldn't shoot your 85mm at f/1.4 very often - you would usually use it around f/4 to actually get more DOF, not less - you want both eyes and most of a face in focus, not one sharp eye and one blurred one.

But minor issues always become major ones in such discussions. It amazes me that I have to have this discussion on PF where people should have got over this aspect after all the years of discussing APS-C vs FF.

[wombat2go]

New to M4/3 I am trying to come to grips with the dof etc.
This is a crop 2255x1506 with the lens at about 10mm.
Focussed on the doll's mouth.
I tried this hand held with IS on but the doll was not sharp.
This one on a tripod with the IS off till I get used to it.

https://www.box.com/s/e784b418037950336975

is this any good for close in portraits? Maybe so.

[Christine Tham]

I think that is the crucial part. You know your image at 100% so you may be happy with it even at low size. But I and others cannot extrapolate quality from small images. The only thing where the Nikon 1 could show a useful feature in small samples is if you demonstrated shots with thin DOF (something I cannot fake with a P&S even at small size), but anything else is hard to compare.

That wasn't the point I was making.

It is perfectly possible to discern differences between cameras and lenses even at web resoluion - you don't need to pixel peep.

For example - the flower shot which you described as "Lumix IQ at it's best". If you had just slightly lowered the exposure to prevent the white petals from over-saturating (or did some post processing recovery) the picture would have shown additional detail - even at the resolution you chose to display at.

The three night shots you showed lacked detail because of the compositions and your shooting style. As I mentioned before, the presence of strong light sources has obliterated any possibility of displaying low level light detail (although some of these could be recovered through post processing). Your camera should be better than that - and the detail should be visible even at screen resolution.

Here are two examples, taken on a Pentax K10D (which as everyone knows has very poor high ISO capabilities for a DSLR, and roughly comparable in dxomark scoring to m4/3).

Here is a night shot of the base of the Petronas towers in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, taken at high ISO from inside a moving car:


A lot more detail in this photo compared to yours. What is the difference? There is no overall strong light source dominating the picture (and I made sure when composing the shot that there wasn't), therefore the low level detail is allowed to come through. Even so, I have further enhanced the detail through post processing.

Another example, taken in Osaka, near the Hankyu Umeda station - it's vaguely similar to one of your photos:


Again, notice the difference - I carefully controlled exposure to prevent over-saturation in critical areas of the photo, I also deliberately discarded shadow detail to reduce sensor noise. Yet, there is still enough detail - in the pavement, in the bicycles in the foreground, that is clearly visible at web resolution.

I'll stop here, but I could have shown many other photos, taken from many cameras, including compact cameras, that show more detail than the photos you have shown. Your camera is capable of much more - learn how to use it, and you can then show us "Lumix IQ at even better best" :-)

PS - I hope you don't mind if I choose not to respond in detail to your statements around dxomark. Again, I disagree, and you have selectively quoted from dxomark to boost your point - I could have equally selectively quoted (from their explanation of the scoring system, for example) that will show otherwise. But there is no point arguing since it's completely irrelevant who is right or wrong. And by the way, there are several pairs of cameras in the dxomark that share exactly the same sensor (but with different scoring). I'll leave it to you to figure out which - feel free to drop me a PM if you want me to tell you.

[Christine Tham]

Unless you are shooting moving subjects (doesn't seem the case from most of the samples you shared)

You probably haven't been following my posts very closely (which is good, otherwise you would be stalking me) but I have shared many posts of moving subjects - in fact I love taking photos of moving subjects on my NEX and M mount lenses.

With focus peaking I can compose, focus and shoot almost as fast as on a DSLR with AF - in many cases better, since I know what should be in focus and what should not.

You are perhaps too young to have a lot of experience with film and rangefinder cameras, but when I first started shooting, I was using my father's Yashica rangefinder. And we used to develop our own photos at high school (the Photography club had a darkroom). One learns how to manual focus moving subjects fairly quickly. I don't miss the old days though - I love all the new technology in modern cameras.

Here are two I haven't shared before:


I must admit - manual focusing with an LCD screen, and shooting a shallow DOF picture whilst stroking a cat - not easy!

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

A lot more detail in this photo compared to yours. What is the difference?

The main difference is a lot of verbal venom on your part. Your night shots suffer from the same shortcomings as mine, even though they are taken with cameras that have much larger sensors. Those shortcomings are typical of night shots, when cameras are pushed to the limits of their capabilities. You do get blown out areas and underexposed ones too - why you can't see them in your own shots is a secret for you to figure out. I could spend more time going into C&C details, but you'll ignore them and others can see for themselves anyway, so I can cut this short.

You are perhaps too young to have a lot of experience with film and rangefinder cameras, but when I first started shooting, I was using my father's Yashica rangefinder. And we used to develop our own photos at high school (the Photography club had a darkroom). One learns how to manual focus moving subjects fairly quickly. I don't miss the old days though - I love all the new technology in modern cameras.

Well, you seem to live in your own imaginary world, Christine. You presume too much and you don't know when to stop. If you cannot impress with your results, do you think a description of your experience will be more effective? Like your Leica shots whose quality cannot be shown, but must be described, it seems that your knowledge also needs to be asserted in words rather than shown in behavior. You are doing all this self promoting after presumably demonstrating your point already with examples - you are self defeating.

BTW, my first camera was a rangefinder and one result of that experience is that I manually focus to this day. So much for those presumptions of yours.