todays 10mp are not worse than a 5 year old 5mp camera of ANY model so of course its the same rules. canon, nikon, all of them now get more information from the same sensor they were using 5 years ago and they not had to sacrifice quality
Is the PEN is mightier than the Nikon?
- Thread starter goldenlight
- Start date
todays 10mp are not worse than a 5 year old 5mp camera of ANY model so of course its the same rules. canon, nikon, all of them now get more information from the same sensor they were using 5 years ago and they not had to sacrifice quality
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
your arguements fall over cause you're just thinking mp. I agree with you there, but you need to think about the optical rules affected by a change in sensor size - what happens to the circle of confusion for example (aside from it confusing me)
wow my 2,000th post and I got to talk about CoC not sure if thats sad or not
Where dis you see the resentment? Has anybody on this thread said that 4/3 is rubbish? The main argument of the whole thing was about the comparison sites (at least as I saw it). I would also say that each system has its uses and those are not necessarily the same - just as large format will have its use and it will be different from FF. No amount of sensor quality will ever change that
your arguements fall over cause you're just thinking mp. I agree with you there, but you need to think about the optical rules affected by a change in sensor size - what happens to the circle of confusion for example (aside from it confusing me)
wow my 2,000th post and I got to talk about CoC not sure if thats sad or not
2000 posts ... cool.
i see what you mean its not mp....
but if optics are set in stone so to speak and unable to be compressed you could have looked at a say canon sensor 5 years ago and said this is how good it can be with this sized sensor.
todays one would hower be far more sensitive, less noise, better resolution contrast etc etc proving that every year more is achieved without making the sensor bigger , thereby todays smaller sensor is probably on a par withh last years slightly bigger one and I still think all dslr are capable of more than most peeps using them.. me being at the top of that particular list
I think you need to go back to basics - at least one aspect of the sensor is actually dictating the fact that larger is better (up to some limit) - all technological and other sensor aspects (including pixel count) being equal. You physically can capture more photons with the larger sensels (individual sensor photoelements) than with the tiny ones. A usual way of representing this fact is to compare this with buckets put outside to capture water from a rain - the wider one will get more water than a narrower one. No matter of amplification can improve that - so if you have a tiny sensel and a lighting conditions than can capture 1 photon vs the larger one capturing 10 - amplification will only make it worse for the tiny one. Noise will be amplified as well as SNR so you will still have less quality of the signal comparing to the larger one. And improvements in technology won't be able to bring this down beyond a theoretical limit - there always will be noise. According to some sources D3s sensor and supporting electronics is really close to that limit.
for fun
http://www.dpreview.co.uk/news/9906/99061501nikond1_pressrelease.asp
and i think this was full frame
Anyone have one ?
$5500 ! 2.4 mp !
al
http://www.dpreview.co.uk/news/9906/99061501nikond1_pressrelease.asp
and i think this was full frame
Anyone have one ?
$5500 ! 2.4 mp !
al
- Messages
- 589
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- No
Olympus v Nikon threads are much better than the Canon v Nikon ones, god I love this place.
- Messages
- 8,193
- Name
- Pat MacInnes
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Was thinking of something to say - you've summed it up. Great thread but shows how much time people have on their hands.....
OP
- Messages
- 984
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- Yes
OP
- Messages
- 984
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- Yes
your arguements fall over cause you're just thinking mp. I agree with you there, but you need to think about the optical rules affected by a change in sensor size - what happens to the circle of confusion for example (aside from it confusing me)
wow my 2,000th post and I got to talk about CoC not sure if thats sad or not
Ah, Circles of Confusion - used to waste many a happy hour calculating these before we had forums!
Basically, the larger the format the larger the circle of confusion permissible to retain acceptable sharpness in areas of the image either side of the true plane of focus. The DOF scales we used to find on manual focus primes were usually based on what would appear acceptably sharp on a 10 x 8 print. For this purpose, if I remember right, it was taken that the maximum circle size for 35mm was around 0.025mm and for 645 (my Bronica) 0.04mm.
Two problems here; one person's opinion of what is acceptably sharp may be different from anothers and these calculations were based on a print size of 10 x 8 but what if you wanted to print larger? When shooting landscapes requiring a wide DOF I had no idea if the image would be reproduced at, say, a quarter page or as a 16 x 12 approx double page spread. To err on the side of safety, I would set the aperture to f22 but use the index mark for f11 on the lens or, at a push, f16.
Of course, with the widespread use of zooms in this digital age that method of working is no longer possible. Fortunately the small 4/3 sensor with its tiny circle of confusion and inherently vast DOF comes to my aid by making the hyperfocal distance less critical.
As you and others rightly point out that does have an adverse effect on achieving a shallow DOF, but luckily the Olympus lens range (and we are talking 4/3 here rather than MFT) is blessed with a large choice of fast constant aperture zooms and primes which do mitigate this shortcomming quite substantially.
Congratulations on your 2000th post.
OP
- Messages
- 984
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Just to get this thread back into perspective, it's original purpose was to discuss the results that I appear to have found when using a camera comparison website that I stumbled across. It seemed to be a very useful tool and my immediate thought was to compare the E-3 to the E-PL1 to see how far sensors in Olympus cameras (be they Four Thirds or Micro Four Thirds) had progressed in the last couple of years. There did indeed appear to be a significant improvement.
Rather than remain entirely parochial I decided to use this new-found tool to compare the latest Olympus (O.K. Panasonic) sensor to what I believe to be the current best in terms of high ISO noise control, i.e. Full Frame 12mp Nikon. I chose the D700 rather than the D3 because the former does at least fall within the bounds of reason that I might, at a push, afford one.
As I said in my opening post, what I saw when making comparisons of the still life scene, greatly magnified on screen, rather shocked and surprised me and I thought this worthy of discussion.
I did not intend the thread to degenerate into a defence by both "sides" of the particular sensor format that they use and looking back I'm perhaps as guilty of that as anyone else. Mind you, I still think it is an exciting development and worthy of recognition that the quality of Four Thirds sensors, particularly at reasonably high ISO, appears to have improved so dramatically over the last few years. That has got to be good for photography in general.
It was never my intention to devalue the qualities of Nikon FF which is still in a class of it's own for certain applications, although obviously as a 4/3 user I am pleased that the smaller format now apppears to more closely match the quality obtainable from the larger sensor in many situations. However, rest assured that I do acknowledge the superiority of the larger beast in ceratin situations. On a Four Thirds dedicated forum which I also frequent one of the long standing regulars has recently made the difficult (for him) decision to trade in his E-3 for a D3. Why? Because he now finds much of his paid work to be of musicians in dimly lit venues. Here is what I recently posted on the forum:-
Yep, and that's why, given your circumstances, I think you are doing exactly the right thing with your switch to Nikon. There's no room for sentiment when a better option exists to enable you to do your paid work more effectively.
In another post on that forum I wrote:-
Surely we all want improvement and progress, regardless which manufacturer it comes from. I would be delighted if Nikon or Canon came up with a system (camera, lenses and accessories) that suited me a whole lot better than Olympus currently does, at a price I could afford. I'd be off before you could say "Ansel Adams." Obviously that hasn't happened yet, nor does it seem likely, but i don't owe Olympus any loyalty - they don't pay me to use their cameras. At the moment it is a mutually beneficial partnership, they produce the system that best suits my requirements and I support them by buying it. But it's not an exclusive deal, if Canon could suit my needs better I'd go with them.
I hope that shows that I have no vested interest in Olympus or Four Thirds, other than it is the system that best suits my needs at the moment. It would be nice to think that others share that sentiment.
Rather than remain entirely parochial I decided to use this new-found tool to compare the latest Olympus (O.K. Panasonic) sensor to what I believe to be the current best in terms of high ISO noise control, i.e. Full Frame 12mp Nikon. I chose the D700 rather than the D3 because the former does at least fall within the bounds of reason that I might, at a push, afford one.
As I said in my opening post, what I saw when making comparisons of the still life scene, greatly magnified on screen, rather shocked and surprised me and I thought this worthy of discussion.
I did not intend the thread to degenerate into a defence by both "sides" of the particular sensor format that they use and looking back I'm perhaps as guilty of that as anyone else. Mind you, I still think it is an exciting development and worthy of recognition that the quality of Four Thirds sensors, particularly at reasonably high ISO, appears to have improved so dramatically over the last few years. That has got to be good for photography in general.
It was never my intention to devalue the qualities of Nikon FF which is still in a class of it's own for certain applications, although obviously as a 4/3 user I am pleased that the smaller format now apppears to more closely match the quality obtainable from the larger sensor in many situations. However, rest assured that I do acknowledge the superiority of the larger beast in ceratin situations. On a Four Thirds dedicated forum which I also frequent one of the long standing regulars has recently made the difficult (for him) decision to trade in his E-3 for a D3. Why? Because he now finds much of his paid work to be of musicians in dimly lit venues. Here is what I recently posted on the forum:-
Yep, and that's why, given your circumstances, I think you are doing exactly the right thing with your switch to Nikon. There's no room for sentiment when a better option exists to enable you to do your paid work more effectively.
In another post on that forum I wrote:-
Surely we all want improvement and progress, regardless which manufacturer it comes from. I would be delighted if Nikon or Canon came up with a system (camera, lenses and accessories) that suited me a whole lot better than Olympus currently does, at a price I could afford. I'd be off before you could say "Ansel Adams." Obviously that hasn't happened yet, nor does it seem likely, but i don't owe Olympus any loyalty - they don't pay me to use their cameras. At the moment it is a mutually beneficial partnership, they produce the system that best suits my requirements and I support them by buying it. But it's not an exclusive deal, if Canon could suit my needs better I'd go with them.
I hope that shows that I have no vested interest in Olympus or Four Thirds, other than it is the system that best suits my needs at the moment. It would be nice to think that others share that sentiment.
- Messages
- 837
- Name
- Andrew
- Edit My Images
- No
I've skimmed the thread and confess to not looking at the linked test but there's certainly something wrong, either in the tests or the choice of image/ lighting, etc.
Have a look at the review by Thom Hogan (just one example) who looked at the performance of the EP1. http://www.bythom.com/olympusep1review.htm Note that this was done a while back so will be the older firmware, but he highlights a number of areas where the EP1 doesn't match the performance of DSLRs.
Though not the initial argument, looking at the broader issues, others have pointed out that there are a number of situations where larger imaging systems will be needed.
This isn't to say MFT kit is bad -- both systems have their place; I'm very tempted and Thom himself uses MFT kit alongside his other kit.
Have a look at the review by Thom Hogan (just one example) who looked at the performance of the EP1. http://www.bythom.com/olympusep1review.htm Note that this was done a while back so will be the older firmware, but he highlights a number of areas where the EP1 doesn't match the performance of DSLRs.
Though not the initial argument, looking at the broader issues, others have pointed out that there are a number of situations where larger imaging systems will be needed.
This isn't to say MFT kit is bad -- both systems have their place; I'm very tempted and Thom himself uses MFT kit alongside his other kit.
- Messages
- 2,677
- Name
- Lindsay
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm fortunate enough to have a kit bag full of Canon L lenses, 5D MkIII bodes etc, but since I bought my Olympus OMD EM-5 last November (and a collection of fabulous Micro 4/3 lenses) I've only used my DSLR kit a couple of times, currently I keep it as backup or for my assistant/trainees. Occasionally my assistant and I will shoot side-by-side on an outing and it's usually extremely difficult to tell the difference between the output, I can sometimes spot them because the MkIII WB runs very slightly cooler than the OMD (and hence requires a bit of correction during postprocessing, which the Oly never does). The level of detail, and tolerance, afforded by the OMD sensor is extraordinary and I have never felt that I'm missing out by using the OMD as opposed to the 5D MkIII. Nor do my clients, who are a very picky bunch.
In terms of performance the autofocus on the OMD is superb and its general attributes are very DSLR-like. There are thousands of images on both my general Blog and animal photography Blog taken with my Micro 4/3 system.
You will see just under two stops of additional depth of field versus full frame, which can be a real advantage at times (and if you really do need very shallow depth of field then the Micro 4/3 primes are superb). I feel I have the best of both worlds. And now I can carry a full complement of equipment in one small bag, which I was unable to do previously due to weight issues (I'm small, female, and not massively strong). I can now take assignments involving walking and public transport, which I used to shy away from before. And clients seem to absolutely love the OMD, it's small and pretty, it isn't imposing, and it makes people smile.
In terms of performance the autofocus on the OMD is superb and its general attributes are very DSLR-like. There are thousands of images on both my general Blog and animal photography Blog taken with my Micro 4/3 system.
You will see just under two stops of additional depth of field versus full frame, which can be a real advantage at times (and if you really do need very shallow depth of field then the Micro 4/3 primes are superb). I feel I have the best of both worlds. And now I can carry a full complement of equipment in one small bag, which I was unable to do previously due to weight issues (I'm small, female, and not massively strong). I can now take assignments involving walking and public transport, which I used to shy away from before. And clients seem to absolutely love the OMD, it's small and pretty, it isn't imposing, and it makes people smile.
- Messages
- 17,227
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
That site really makes me feel delighted I bought the Fuji X100s though. As I expected, and going on shooting both, it's every bit as good as the D800E, and It seems to beat most other cameras on there at 3200-6400 and is even a good match for the higher end ones.
One of these is the Canon 1Dx, the other the Fuji X100s ... both at ISO 3200
Could you pick which is which?
One of these is the Canon 1Dx, the other the Fuji X100s ... both at ISO 3200
Could you pick which is which?
Last edited:
- Messages
- 17,227
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
Are you saying they are exaggerating the fuji results? Or Fuji themselves do so on their cameras? why would they do that? I've tested the X100s personally, here's a shot, with no post processing, shot at ISO 4000:
Fuji X100s tester2 by Cagey75, on Flickr
That is as clean, if not cleaner than what I'd get from the D800. Maybe not as sharp, but it's not an FX sensor. I think it's remarkable how well it performs. And this was in a dark kitchen, half the lights faded last week, really hate those ceiling lights.
Fuji X100s tester2 by Cagey75, on Flickr
That is as clean, if not cleaner than what I'd get from the D800. Maybe not as sharp, but it's not an FX sensor. I think it's remarkable how well it performs. And this was in a dark kitchen, half the lights faded last week, really hate those ceiling lights.
Last edited:
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 44,020
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
Holy thread resurrection! I really fancy a Fuji but I can't get over not being able to shoot RAW at ISO 100. That just kills it for me and I just can't understand why manufacturers are upping the base ISO on enthusiast cameras. Madness IMVHO.
Anyway... I have a 5D and G1 and I find that other than at the higher ISO setting G1 images can easily be lost amongst 5D images and no one can tell what camera took what shot on screen or in print any better than chance.
The DoF argument. It's perfectly possible to get shallow DoF from MFT, use a longish lens, a wide aperture and if necessary reduce your camera to subject distance. I like shallow DoF but with FF as often as not I'm fighting light and shutter speed for more DoF especially when there isn't that much distance between camera and subject. Anything between MFT, APS-C and FF is ok really but to be honest I think that for me personally FF is at the far end of what's acceptable to shoot hand held with.
Anyway... I have a 5D and G1 and I find that other than at the higher ISO setting G1 images can easily be lost amongst 5D images and no one can tell what camera took what shot on screen or in print any better than chance.
The DoF argument. It's perfectly possible to get shallow DoF from MFT, use a longish lens, a wide aperture and if necessary reduce your camera to subject distance. I like shallow DoF but with FF as often as not I'm fighting light and shutter speed for more DoF especially when there isn't that much distance between camera and subject. Anything between MFT, APS-C and FF is ok really but to be honest I think that for me personally FF is at the far end of what's acceptable to shoot hand held with.
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 44,020
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
I like to shoot with wide aperture lenses and therefore a high base ISO means using ND's more and personally I find juggling ND's a PITA.
It bugs me that Panny and Oly (and Fuji) make some nice wide aperture lenses and yet the double whammy is that the max shutter speed is 1/4000 and now the base ISO is rising away from 100. PITA.
OK, years ago we had even lower shutter speeds and ND's were if anything used more but it isn't 1950 anymore and I'd like the option of shooting at f1.4 for one shot and then f8 for the next (as I can with my 5D as it has ISO 100 and a max shutter seed of 1/8000) without having to take my lens hood off, get a ND out of my bag, fit it, take the shot and then take the ND off for the next shot because my shutter speed has fallen to 1/20 and my ISO has risen to 1600. Like I said and for me personally... PITA.
- Messages
- 7,508
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- Yes
That site really makes me feel delighted I bought the Fuji X100s though. As I expected, and going on shooting both, it's every bit as good as the D800E, and It seems to beat most other cameras on there at 3200-6400 and is even a good match for the higher end ones.
One of these is the Canon 1Dx, the other the Fuji X100s ... both at ISO 3200
Could you pick which is which?
Slightly difficult looking at an image slightly bigger than a postage stamp
The left is the Fuji. Right is the Canon.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 17,227
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
Are you viewing on a phone? The images are big enough here, that's 100% crop samples of course.
Fuji is the one on the right The Canon on the left, is sharper, the detail in the threads is better, but it's a little flakier on the ISO noise front. I'm guessing they used NR here on the fuji, which tends to smoothen out noise, but also some detail. I never use NR. But I mostly shoot RAW anyway.
woof woof, the Fuji has a built in ND filter. Good to 3 stops I believe. I've not really tried that out yet. But you can set the ND filter to the top Fn button for quick access. I have ISO on there for now.
Fuji is the one on the right
The Canon on the left, is sharper, the detail in the threads is better, but it's a little flakier on the ISO noise front. I'm guessing they used NR here on the fuji, which tends to smoothen out noise, but also some detail. I never use NR. But I mostly shoot RAW anyway. woof woof, the Fuji has a built in ND filter. Good to 3 stops I believe. I've not really tried that out yet. But you can set the ND filter to the top Fn button for quick access. I have ISO on there for now.
Last edited:
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 44,020
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
I'd only be interested in the changeable lens models.