Older Nikons vs Newer Micro 4/3

woof woof said:
OK Andrew.

I have pictures I've taken which are technically poor but I keep them because they mean something to me but I would not post them as any proof of the technical ability of the kit because they wouldn't be proof of that. They'd be captures of moments and memories and there's nothing wrong with that and there's a place for those pictures and some may mean more to me/you than the most technically correct pictures we take take.

If I'd taken those pictures I'd only keep them if I felt an emotional connection. If they were just snaps of random people taken at a random time I'd delete them... And here's the leap of faith... I suspect other people would too... Soz if the pictures do mean something to you and if they do you're right to keep them. Good for you.
Click to expand...

When I see Andrew’s photos I marvel at the metagtagging and key-wording, particularly of the analogue ones. I wosh my tagging was as good.
 
Crotal Bell said:
Even without any user experience, I can appreciate what your saying in this respect, and I realise lenses with come into discussions about bigger cameras/sensors. I have the Pana 100-300mm and it's a light set-up to carry with the G80. I've looked at the size and weight of the same sort of crop sensor set-up and not sure I would fancy that on a long walk.
I like these photos, they may not be technically perfect, but I like the look on the face of the swimmer and the position of the jumper.
Click to expand...
The Panny Leica 100-400mm is a very nice lens and for a lens with effectively 800mm reach it’s extremely light. I highly rated mine. I’m not sure these will link properly from my phone so will amend tomorrow but this was taken with the 100-400mm, through glass too.


P7145007-Edit by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

As for dynamic range these were both high DR scenes taken with m4/3 and I think it handled the scenes pretty well.


P7092340 re-edit mono 3 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

PC014313 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Pound Coin said:
When I see Andrew’s photos I marvel at the metagtagging and key-wording, particularly of the analogue ones. I wosh my tagging was as good.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what this means :D Proof I suppose that I'm a technophobe these days.
 
snerkler said:
The Panny Leica 100-400mm is a very nice lens and for a lens with effectively 800mm reach it’s extremely light. I highly rated mine. I’m not sure these will link properly from my phone so will amend tomorrow but this was taken with the 100-400mm, through glass too.

(as suspected link didn’t work properly)


As for dynamic range these were both high DR scenes taken with m4/3 and I think it handled the scenes pretty well.

(as suspected links didn’t work properly)
Click to expand...
This raises another angle to the whole debate, well it does for me anyway.
Chasing other cameras or comparing potential results, when actually investing in the right lens for the job will achieve just as good results with an 16MP Pana G80,
The Pana G9 and G90 have an extra 4MPs on their sensors = 20MP. BUT....spend the money on the lens that will get the best result and you just as well off with the 16MP G80?
so rather than shooting things at distance that need cropping with 20MP, get the lens that gets the 16MP camera closer instead.
(I'm never going to have the cash for a 100-400mm Leica but still looking forward to your thoughts on the above)
 
Last edited:
Crotal Bell said:
This raises another angle to the whole debate, well it does for me anyway.
Chasing other cameras or comparing potential results, when actually investing in the right lens for the job will achieve just as good results with an 16MP Pana G80,
The Pana G9 and G90 have an extra 4MPs on their sensors = 20MP. BUT....spend the money on the lens that will get the best result and you just as well off with the 16MP G80?
so rather than shooting things at distance that need cropping with 20MP, get the lens that gets the 16MP camera closer instead.
(I'm never going to have the cash for a 100-400mm Leica but still looking forward to your thoughts on the above)
Click to expand...
If that is what your aim is, then yes, a 100-400 on a G80 will give better results than a 100-300 on a G9.
(depending on time and weather, will try and do a couple of tests of that today, something I have not compared directly in test shots)

However, a 100-400 on a G9....... :)

The 100-400 is a better lens than the 100-300, sharper and better stabilisation, and the effective gain in resolution of a cropped part of the image would be greater than the gain of 20mp over 16mp.

The down side is that one that is "as new" will range from £850 on ebay to £980 from a dealer with warranty (or more from some dealers who sell used ones for more than a new on ! )


I was wrong, the 100-300 on a G9 gives better results than the 100-400 on the G80
I don't know why, as the effective resolution is better using the 400 on the G80.

I tried this several times, as it didn't behave as I expected, and the results were the same each time.

Both cameras were set f6.3 ISO 200 on aperture priority

This is the whole frame using the on the 100-300 at 300 on the G9g9-300W.jpg

The blue square then cropped
g9-300.jpg



The the same area cropped on the 100-400 at 400 on the G80
g80-400.jpg

The above two were taken probably 20 seconds apart



And this was the G9 with the 100-400 at 400, taken a few minutes later
g9-400.jpg


The subject is about 200m away.


It seems clear that the G9 is giving better results even with less pixels in the cropped image.
All were handheld, but from past experience I would expect the trend to be the same if the cameras were on a tripod
 
Last edited:
Crotal Bell said:
Chasing other cameras or comparing potential results, when actually investing in the right lens for the job will achieve just as good results with an 16MP Pana G80,
The Pana G9 and G90 have an extra 4MPs on their sensors = 20MP
Click to expand...

The resolution you need depends on the use of the image. If you never do more than post to the internet then 6mp is probably fine, albeit limiting. However 2 weeks ago I had a couple of prints done for the office wall, 30 inches on the long side at 300 pixels per inch. The base image needed a little enlargement, from a 24 MP original and looked fine, however if I'd started from 12 or 8 MP then without some funky software tweaks I don't think it would have held the same wow factor. Viewing distance is a factor, but comments from viewer about feeling like they could keep walking into the scene made me feel that keeping a high resolution was worthwhile.
 
woof woof said:
If they were just snaps of random people taken at a random time I'd delete them..
Click to expand...
Your opinion is as valid as any other opinion. Just keep in mind that it's an opinion with exactly the same value as mine or that of anyone else. ;)
 
ancient_mariner said:
The resolution you need depends on the use of the image.
Click to expand...
And the subject matter to a degree. Lots of fine detail tends to benefit from higher resolution, and printing/displaying larger.

IMO :exit:
 
Sangoma said:
If that is what your aim is, then yes, a 100-400 on a G80 will give better results than a 100-300 on a G9.
(depending on time and weather, will try and do a couple of tests of that today, something I have not compared directly in test shots)

However, a 100-400 on a G9....... :)

The 100-400 is a better lens than the 100-300, sharper and better stabilisation, and the effective gain in resolution of a cropped part of the image would be greater than the gain of 20mp over 16mp.

The down side is that one that is "as new" will range from £850 on ebay to £980 from a dealer with warranty (or more from some dealers who sell used ones for more than a new on ! )


I was wrong, the 100-300 on a G9 gives better results than the 100-400 on the G80
I don't know why, as the effective resolution is better using the 400 on the G80.

I tried this several times, as it didn't behave as I expected, and the results were the same each time.

Both cameras were set f6.3 ISO 200 on aperture priority

This is the whole frame using the on the 100-300 at 300 on the G9View attachment 365138

The blue square then cropped
View attachment 365139



The the same area cropped on the 100-400 at 400 on the G80
View attachment 365141

The above two were taken probably 20 seconds apart



And this was the G9 with the 100-400 at 400, taken a few minutes later
View attachment 365146


The subject is about 200m away.


It seems clear that the G9 is giving better results even with less pixels in the cropped image.
All were handheld, but from past experience I would expect the trend to be the same if the cameras were on a tripod
Click to expand...
You are very kind to do this mate, thank you.
As I understand it, the G80 was an improved G7, but the G9 takes it's guts from the GH5 and aimed more at stills.
I can only conclude that the G9 is a clear advantage over a G80, not just in pixels but likely a superior sensor and tech under the bonnet in other areas.
I've read that Panasonic claimed the G90 should take photos on par with the G9.
 
Crotal Bell said:
You are very kind to do this mate, thank you.
As I understand it, the G80 was an improved G7, but the G9 takes it's guts from the GH5 and aimed more at stills.
I can only conclude that the G9 is a clear advantage over a G80, not just in pixels but likely a superior sensor and tech under the bonnet in other areas.
I've read that Panasonic claimed the G90 should take photos on par with the G9.
Click to expand...
I'm sure it would, the basic specs are almost identical, but there are many useful refinements and features missing, new there was a large price difference, used there is not.
 
Crotal Bell said:
You are very kind to do this mate, thank you.
As I understand it, the G80 was an improved G7, but the G9 takes it's guts from the GH5 and aimed more at stills.
I can only conclude that the G9 is a clear advantage over a G80, not just in pixels but likely a superior sensor and tech under the bonnet in other areas.
I've read that Panasonic claimed the G90 should take photos on par with the G9.
Click to expand...
There’s an excellent video by Sultanoblog on YouTube comparing the two.
 
Sangoma said:
I'm sure it would, the basic specs are almost identical, but there are many useful refinements and features missing, new there was a large price difference, used there is not.
Click to expand...
It doesn't seem much difference, but generally from what I have seen:
The G90 can be bought excellent cond with shutter count 5000 for about £550
The G9 can be bought excellent cond but shutter count 20,000 for about £650

It doesn't seem much but we all have to draw our lines somewhere and the G90's are generally far less shutter counts.

A mint G9 with very low SC is still around £700
 
snerkler said:
The Panny Leica 100-400mm is a very nice lens and for a lens with effectively 800mm reach it’s extremely light. I highly rated mine. I’m not sure these will link properly from my phone so will amend tomorrow but this was taken with the 100-400mm, through glass too.


P7145007-Edit by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

As for dynamic range these were both high DR scenes taken with m4/3 and I think it handled the scenes pretty well.


P7092340 re-edit mono 3 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

PC014313 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
Click to expand...
I cannot imagine ever needing or desiring anything more than the quality in those fantastic photos.
 
Crotal Bell said:
It doesn't seem much difference, but generally from what I have seen:
The G90 can be bought excellent cond with shutter count 5000 for about £550
The G9 can be bought excellent cond but shutter count 20,000 for about £650

It doesn't seem much but we all have to draw our lines somewhere and the G90's are generally far less shutter counts.

A mint G9 with very low SC is still around £700
Click to expand...
I paid much less than (around 600) that including a 12-60 lens and a shutter count of 2749, boxed and no signs of use.
 
Last edited:
Stephen L said:
Be honest, you bagged a bargain there! ;):D
Click to expand...
Yes, without a doubt, but I have said before there are always bargains if you watch and wait :)

I waited just over 3 weeks from the time I made the decision to the time I got mine.

I got similar bargains on the G80, a G5 and a G7.

Missed out on lots in the process, but didn't lose in the end.
 
Sangoma said:
If that is what your aim is, then yes, a 100-400 on a G80 will give better results than a 100-300 on a G9.
(depending on time and weather, will try and do a couple of tests of that today, something I have not compared directly in test shots)

However, a 100-400 on a G9....... :)

The 100-400 is a better lens than the 100-300, sharper and better stabilisation, and the effective gain in resolution of a cropped part of the image would be greater than the gain of 20mp over 16mp.

The down side is that one that is "as new" will range from £850 on ebay to £980 from a dealer with warranty (or more from some dealers who sell used ones for more than a new on ! )


I was wrong, the 100-300 on a G9 gives better results than the 100-400 on the G80
I don't know why, as the effective resolution is better using the 400 on the G80.

I tried this several times, as it didn't behave as I expected, and the results were the same each time.

Both cameras were set f6.3 ISO 200 on aperture priority

This is the whole frame using the on the 100-300 at 300 on the G9View attachment 365138

The blue square then cropped
View attachment 365139



The the same area cropped on the 100-400 at 400 on the G80
View attachment 365141

The above two were taken probably 20 seconds apart



And this was the G9 with the 100-400 at 400, taken a few minutes later
View attachment 365146


The subject is about 200m away.


It seems clear that the G9 is giving better results even with less pixels in the cropped image.
All were handheld, but from past experience I would expect the trend to be the same if the cameras were on a tripod
Click to expand...
That's surprising. I wonder why the G80 images are so bad, is IBIS not working properly or something?
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Your opinion is as valid as any other opinion. Just keep in mind that it's an opinion with exactly the same value as mine or that of anyone else. ;)
Click to expand...

As they're your shots I'm glad you're happy with them Andrew. That is what counts.
 
Crotal Bell said:
Thank you Alan, I sincerely appreciate that.
I think it's a mixture of passion and OCD but no doubt I'll be back to take more pictures of that scene :)
Click to expand...

If you like the scene I think this is a good idea as the light on another day may completely transform the picture and you might like it even more :D The problem with taking a really good picture is that you then judge your other pictures against it :D
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
That's surprising. I wonder why the G80 images are so bad, is IBIS not working properly or something?
Click to expand...
It would be using the lens stabilisation as well, where as the the 100-300 & G9 combination would not be using dual stabilisation.

I don't think it is so bad, I have notice similar before, but didn't expect the camera lens combination to not be as good as the G9+300

I have tried a G7 as well, and it is similar to the G80 when both are on a tripod. They both improve in strong light.

If it was stabilisation, I would expect some shots to be OK, but there were consistent, even when I went and repeated it a couple of times because I was surprised.

Using a tripod may improve things, but I have spent hours doing similar tests, and when there is a trend, as long as the light etc is reasonable, a tripod may improve things, but it would improve both.
I'm not doubting the results enough to make it a priority to try more, but may do one day :)
 
Crotal Bell said:
I doubt I would bid on any of those as I really don't like buying expensive items on Ebay unless it's a known trusted camera selling specialist.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, that does mean that you would probably pay about 33% more (ie the markup by some dealers, though most look like 50%)

I have never had a problem, ask the right questions and test when it arrives, and on very odd occasions return it if it is not as it should be.

I like to ask the previous owner the questions, and don't buy from cash converters and house clearers etc., but buying from a dealer, I have little idea of where it came from and how it was used..

The highest shutter count I have ever bought was a G5 I bought for £48 with a 14-45 lens, and that was 2807 and I bought that for the lens ! The seller had had it for a few years, and genuinely didn't know how to answer questions, I sensed that he was not out to rip anyone off and as I wanted the lens I bid and won, got the lens and an almost new camera.
Very similar story on many other items.

I don't think there is much risk on ebay in reality, but I do appreciate many don't feel comfortable with it.
 
Sangoma said:
I don't think it is so bad, I have notice similar before, but didn't expect the camera lens combination to not be as good as the G9+300
Click to expand...
Doesn’t look great :oops: :$
 
Since we were talking about dynamic range a while back, this is an example of where a wide dynamic range is useful:

Un-processed
Dynamic range example-05283-2.jpg

After.
Dynamic range example-05283.jpg

I exposed for the highlights, and was still able to get a decent amount of detail without too much noise in the shadows while keeping it looking natural.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Since we were talking about dynamic range a while back, this is an example of where a wide dynamic range is useful:

Un-processed
View attachment 365341

After.
View attachment 365342

I exposed for the highlights, and was still able to get a decent amount of detail without too much noise in the shadows while keeping it looking natural.
Click to expand...
When you say exposed for the highlights, do you mean lowering the exposure compensation then lifting shadows in post?
 
Crotal Bell said:
When you say exposed for the highlights, do you mean lowering the exposure compensation then lifting shadows in post?
Click to expand...

The wall was very bright, so I took the exposure value from the wall, then took the picture. That exposed for the highlights, resulting in the first image.

Many cameras have a spot meter function, measuring light levels from a small area of the frame, and that was what I used. There is also normally a button to lock exposure settings while it's held down, allowing you to recompose after metering.
 
Just as an aside I find my Olympus requires far more exposure compensation when in aperture priority mode. I’m always making adjustments on the dial and it’s a dial that ai rarely touch on the Nikon.
 
Crotal Bell said:
When you say exposed for the highlights, do you mean lowering the exposure compensation then lifting shadows in post?
Click to expand...

ancient_mariner said:
The wall was very bright, so I took the exposure value from the wall, then took the picture. That exposed for the highlights, resulting in the first image.

Many cameras have a spot meter function, measuring light levels from a small area of the frame, and that was what I used. There is also normally a button to lock exposure settings while it's held down, allowing you to recompose after metering.
Click to expand...
On some cameras there's also a highlight metering mode which I sometimes find useful
 
Brazo said:
Just as an aside I find my Olympus requires far more exposure compensation when in aperture priority mode. I’m always making adjustments on the dial and it’s a dial that ai rarely touch on the Nikon.
Click to expand...
Odd, I rarely use mine :thinking:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top