20MP FF vs 20MP M43

Sangoma

Sangoma

Messages
2,162
Name
Steve, Coventry, England
Edit My Images
Yes
My 5Diii arrived the other day, no light or welcoming weather, so I started comparing high ISO shots indoors with the G9

Both cameras have different advantages, and the 5diii has a definite edge at 12800 and above.

I was very surprised at the performance of both of them at high ISOs, both give very useable pictures at 25600, though the Canon gets batter compared to the G9 as the ISO increases.

I find for some reason, and I can't see why, the Canon RAWs are easier and quicker to develop.

Looking forward to some brighter days to compare in good light.

There were taken this morning long before the sun came up (around 5:30 am), one with the G9 and one with the 5Diii

My surprise comes mainly from the fact that 1600 is very high for me :)


1.jpg2.jpg
 
Last edited:
The top image looks smooth and blurry, like there was camera shake and way too much noise reduction was applied. The bottom image looks sharp but way noisy, even at this tiny resolution.

I couldn't tell which is which because the processing is so different.
 
Last edited:
You are comparing camera with sensor across generations, not really a fair comparison. There's nearly 10 years difference between 5Dii and G9.
 
ancient_mariner said:
The top image looks smooth and blurry, like there was camera shake and way too much noise reduction was applied. The bottom image looks sharp but way noisy, even at this tiny resolution.

I couldn't tell which is which because the processing is so different.
Click to expand...
You are 100% correct, most of the blur in the first one was camera shake, 1/10s, and the Canon applies more noise reduction be default.

Noise reduction on the G9 is set to the lowest possible, as is sharpening.

However, the overall appearance of the Canon is better to my eye, especially looking at the building in the background.
 
Last edited:
If you compare the dpreview ISO test results side by side at RAW 25600, you can clearly see the 5D MK 3 easily wins though.

Still it shows m43 is not much more than a stop off though, although they are from different release dates.
 
fujilover said:
If you compare the dpreview ISO test results side by side at RAW 25600, you can clearly see the 5D MK 3 easily wins though.

Still it shows m43 is not much more than a stop off though, although they are from different release dates.
Click to expand...


Yes, I think I posted pictures from the DPreview site comparison the other day.

I use that and other sites as guidance, but my final opinion is based on a completely unscientific test of holding them in my hands and seeing which one I like best.

I was very surprised at both, how good an older camera is, and how close the much smaller sensor is.

Though to me, both cameras have distinct advantages for different uses, and each is far better than the other under different conditions (in my way of using anyway)
 
Modern cameras have caught up a lot, I was supprised how much better the 90d was compared to the 7d. Yes it's a lot newer but it's also got twice the MP nearly.
 
It would be interesting to see how they look after going through DXO deeprime NR.
 
Hopefully you managed to get out over the weekend - we also had some great light this evening. The woods down at the end of that road are a regular haunt for my photography.
 
Isn't this a thing, whereby 20MP on a full frame camera are more receptive to light and produce better results, whereas 20MP on a M 4/3'rd camera are all squished up? Not the most scientific of observations, I know. :D
 
Plain Nev said:
Isn't this a thing, whereby 20MP on a full frame camera are more receptive to light and produce better results, whereas 20MP on a M 4/3'rd camera are all squished up? Not the most scientific of observations, I know. :D
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's photosite density. To fill a M43 sensor with 20MP, the photosites will have to be smaller to fit them all on a sensor meaning less efficient capture of light in equivalent scenarios.

Modern smaller sensor cameras have done a really good job minimising this disadvantage but larger photosites equal more efficient light usage which gives a bit more ISO wiggle room.

I do find it funny that the MP race on mobile phones is actually a race to make their computational systems work harder to keep up with the reduced dynamic range, poorer ISO performance and decreased colour accuracy that comes with stacking insane megapixel counts onto tiny sensors, but hey, you can boast about a number to your friends I guess!

Consumer electronics has always been a bit 'My Dad is bigger than your Dad' but it's an easy sell so I see why companies do it.
 
Plain Nev said:
Isn't this a thing, whereby 20MP on a full frame camera are more receptive to light and produce better results, whereas 20MP on a M 4/3'rd camera are all squished up? Not the most scientific of observations, I know. :D
Click to expand...
Probably a good way to put it
 
Craikeybaby said:
Hopefully you managed to get out over the weekend - we also had some great light this evening. The woods down at the end of that road are a regular haunt for my photography.
Click to expand...
We often walk there too, but not had much luck this year. Also walk along the brookstray quite often as well.
Many of the good places in this area are not accessible without walking quite a distance though
 
When I first got my Panasonic G1 I compared it to my Canon 5D and found that in some situations the G1 had a slight advantage as you could see the exposure and compensate for harsh conditions more accurately and therefore had more chance of getting a recoverable picture and the files stood up quite well to more than usual processing but all this was at ISO 1,600 and lower. I would expect a newer MFT camera to stand up quite well when compared to an older FF camera. I remember our wedding pictures were taken with a 5D II and I do think my newer MFT cameras give better image quality. These days I find my Sony A7 to be about a stop above the Panasonic cameras I have.
 
I'm going through a somewhat similar experience and appreciate the relevance of comparing different generation cameras when you own them. Been using D610 for a number of years and recently went to Olympus EM10 MK4 as a period of concept for hiking. Found I liked the lights weight and got black Friday fever and got an om1.

For wildlife with the D610 I had the sigma 150-600C
For wildlife with the om1 I have the Panasonic Leica 100-400. .

My landscape lens was 24-120 f4 for the D610. For Olympus the 12-40 pro ii.

It's still early days but I think the om1 will be the wildlife and day hiking camera. Am really liking the extra reach of the om1, stabilisation and autofocus

While the D610 will be astro and sun rise/set photos where I may print canvas size.

But I'm still learning with the om1, and not done sun rise/ set with it yet. Do if it performs well there the d610 may be a dust gatherer. If not, when the d610 stops working, I like the idea of some of the Sony full frame small body mirror less.

But like I say, still learning with the om1. Trial and error and I'll get to a place im happy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top