Look at the globe, more chroma noise even at base ISO on the MFT 16mpx than vs the APS-C.
Although the GX-1 seems to retain slightly more fine detail than the OM-D however the OM-D has better noise characteristics in solid colors.
By ISO800, the OM-D gets far more splotchier in colors than APS-C, it does lose more detail again to the GX-1 but looks nicer due to stronger noise suppression.
Unexpected result, at ISO1600, its actually very comparable to the 5N on the DPReview test.
I just wish it was less splotchy at base ISO with blues since that means bad skies.
One thing to consider though is the very good IBIS in the EM-5 which allows some pretty crazy handholding times, which in turn translates to being able to shoot at a lower iso (assuming you don't have fast moving subjects of course)
One thing I've found with the NEX7 in particular, due to its 24megs of resolution, is that you need a really solid technique to get maximum sharpness out of it. I can't even image how demanding a D800 must be! Anyways though, I really find that 1/focal length usually isn't quite fast enough for me to get optimum results and I'm often bumping the ISO fairly high, which does get rather noisy. It cleans up pretty and I"m not saying its horrible or anything mind you, but there is a good deal of noise.
EM-5 on the other hand with its IBIS system could let you get away with shooting at ISO 800, when you might need at least ISO 3200 on the NEX. Sony's OSS on the 50mm 1.8 for example is pretty decent and helps, but its nowhere near the 5 axis IBIS system. So you've got some situations where the EM-5 can ouput a much cleaner file simply because its shooting at a lower ISO
If you work from a tripod, or just shooting faster action, its a moot point, but if we are talking something like a handheld night cityscape, then the EM-5 could prove to have a real edge
How are you evaluating color noise on the globe? You realize it has a blue/cyan half toning pattern all over it - check the 645D shot at base ISO if you don't believe me. All you are seeing is variation in the demosaicing of real scene detail - not chroma noise.
Check blue test patches instead. In those there does seem to be a slight advantage to the 5n as you'd expect with a larger sensor and a lower base ISO. At equal ISO I really have trouble telling a difference, but I think I can say the 5n looks better in shadows.
If you look at the blue areas of the watch, there's an inconsistent gradient on all the MFT sensors. Overall the blue transition looks splotchy almost like an error.
This is a problem I've noticed with MFT, the blues somehow look very poor in transition areas.
I have found this to be a major problem in pictures like this:
I think I see what you are referring to in the watch, but more importantly I understand about the blue skies. One reason I'd like a lower base ISO to work with. I don't have any experience with NEX to compare though.
Look at the globe, more chroma noise even at base ISO on the MFT 16mpx than vs the APS-C.
Although the GX-1 seems to retain slightly more fine detail than the OM-D however the OM-D has better noise characteristics in solid colors.
By ISO800, the OM-D gets far more splotchier in colors than APS-C, it does lose more detail again to the GX-1 but looks nicer due to stronger noise suppression.
Unexpected result, at ISO1600, its actually very comparable to the 5N on the DPReview test.
I just wish it was less splotchy at base ISO with blues since that means bad skies.
The problem with dpreview's tests is that their lighting isn't consistent and the exposures between cameras are different. The OM-D gets around +2/3 EV more light than the 5N and around +1 EV more light than the NEX-7 in those dpreview comparisons. Plus, they're not output to the same size, either. I'd imagine that, once DxO Mark tests the OM-D, we'll find that it's just an incremental improvement over other m4/3 cameras, because, even if the OM-D sensor has pulled even with Sony in technology, we've still got sensor size to contend with. Base DR is the big area where m4/3 sensors need improvement, and it looks like the OM-D has taken a nice step in this regard.
millsart, I'm surprised handholding the NEX-7 is tough for you. I find that, with the electronic first curtain shutter, I can hand hold in the 1/20-1/30 range with the Sigma 30, which is pretty good. Below that, motion often becomes an issue, anyways.
douglasf13 wrote:
I'd imagine that, once DxO Mark tests the OM-D, we'll find that it's just an incremental improvement over other m4/3 cameras, because, even if the OM-D sensor has pulled even with Sony in technology, we've still got sensor size to contend with.
It should be within half a stop of the APS-ish sensor, based on size. If it's pulled even then they're contending exceptionally well, given recent underperformance.
olyacme wrote:
It should be within half a stop of the APS-ish sensor, based on size. If it's pulled even then they're contending exceptionally well, given recent underperformance.
/Acme
I believe that it's closer to a stop in difference (not quite a full stop,) but either way, it looks like low light noise is doing well with the OM-D. The DR under around ISO 800 is where the big gap has been, so it'll be interesting how that looks.
douglasf13 wrote:
I believe that it's closer to a stop in difference (not quite a full stop,) but either way, it looks like low light noise is doing well with the OM-D. The DR under around ISO 800 is where the big gap has been, so it'll be interesting how that looks.
Lots of people seem to believe that, but the formats aren't actually that far apart: 39% smaller in area than DX and 28% smaller than Canon APS.
Possibly this is due to the ratios 1 : 1.5 and 1.5 : 2 seeming similar at a glance (both "differing" by 0.5), compounded by failure to account for the different aspect. The old length vs girth dilemma.
Things do get sticky when comparing formats of different aspect ratios, but most usually go by the diagonal, in this case. A 25/2 on m4/3 would approximately equal a 33/2.6 on DX.
Doug, this discussion about the size difference between m4/3 and APSC obviously extend to the even larger size difference between APSC and FF on your other thread, right?
aleksanderpolo wrote:
Doug, this discussion about the size difference between m4/3 and APSC obviously extend to the even larger size difference between APSC and FF on your other thread, right?
I would say 4/3 to APS-C (1.5) is about 0.8 stops and then there is about 1.2 stops between APS-C (1.5) and FF.
As, according to douglasf13, the difference between APS-C and FF is too small to notice in most cases the difference between 4/3 and APS-C should be too small to discuss?
In all honesty there is a difference but after having switched between the three formats more than once I now have decided to stick to 4/3 (or micro 4/3) with its small and good lenses, working AF and so on, and to FF while disregarding the in-betweens. The FF equipment is something I'm planning for only while waiting for a LIVE FF with a good EVF.
I think the problem is MFT sensors always suffered from weird problems like very noticeable noise banding in the GH1 to excessive base ISO noise in solid colors.
I think if Sony used their technology to make MFT sensors, you'll see better performance.
Maybe it's a language barrier problem but it wasn't meant to be taken literally.
The idea is, it's still apparent that Panasonic can't quite match the pace of Sony when it comes to sensor research and fabrication. They're of course not putting in quite as much money in it either.
Nobody really can though yet not Samsung nor Canon.
Now I understand. I don't disagree. To me it means we (we, like in "all photographers") once gain are down to finding something answering to our needs, whatever they might be.
I was an early micro 4/3 adapter, I bought the G1 back in November 2008, but the image quality wasn't really that good. Now, after a detour with the 5DII and Nex-5N, I'm pretty happy with the E-M5. The crop factor itself isn't anything I'm that fund of but I'll live with for a period as as mentioned earlier.
