Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Panasonic or Olympus best IQ in M43?  (Read 3476 times)
NigelC
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 515


« on: September 05, 2013, 02:16:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Over the last couple of years GH2 has become my "pick up and go" camera with 14-140, 100-300 and 20/1.7. (I have DPmerrills and 5d2/Zeiss for other stuff).

I'm happy with that except that in that role I would like the body to perform better at high sensitivity - I feel anything above ISO 800 is unusable although I admit I haven't tried any specialist noise reduction software.

I would consider it worth getting a replacement for the GH2 only if it delivered 2 stops or more better low light performance, especially while I can still get a worthwhile price for the GH2 on ebay. I am realistic about the ceiling on IQ imposed by those lenses (except the 20mm). On the face of it the Panny GX7 looks like what I need (well want would be more accurate!) but those indications of image quality available still suggest the OMD E5 or the EP-5 (latter too expensive with vf) are better. However, a bit more digging, e.g. on Imaging Resource website suggests these comparisons based on jpegs and that Olympus routinely apply more in-camera sharpening than Panasonic.

I wonder if there is an upcoming review of the GX7 on LL which might compare IQ to OMD?

Logged
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1058


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #1 on: September 05, 2013, 07:22:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Over the last couple of years GH2 has become my "pick up and go" camera with 14-140, 100-300 and 20/1.7. (I have DPmerrills and 5d2/Zeiss for other stuff).

I'm happy with that except that in that role I would like the body to perform better at high sensitivity - I feel anything above ISO 800 is unusable although I admit I haven't tried any specialist noise reduction software.

I would consider it worth getting a replacement for the GH2 only if it delivered 2 stops or more better low light performance, especially while I can still get a worthwhile price for the GH2 on ebay. I am realistic about the ceiling on IQ imposed by those lenses (except the 20mm). On the face of it the Panny GX7 looks like what I need (well want would be more accurate!) but those indications of image quality available still suggest the OMD E5 or the EP-5 (latter too expensive with vf) are better. However, a bit more digging, e.g. on Imaging Resource website suggests these comparisons based on jpegs and that Olympus routinely apply more in-camera sharpening than Panasonic.

I wonder if there is an upcoming review of the GX7 on LL which might compare IQ to OMD?



Someone did this test, I just don't remember where.   Try google you'll find it.

But it depends on how you look at it.   If your using a full frame Canon and set it at F4 at 1600 iso and shoot a gh3 or omd at f. 2.8 at 800 iso you have essentially the same exposure, same depth of field and pretty much the same noise level.  

I've test the omd5, the gh3 and the Canon 1dx in the same settings shot the way I mentioned, there is virtually no difference in raw.  The 43 systems tend to come out of camera either looking noiser (OMD which is sharper) or smoother (gh3 which is a little less sharp with their 2.8 zooms but has better color) and a 1dx which is smoother but not more real detail.

If you work the files in the latest C-1 or lightroom (I prefer C-1 and Irident Developer) and are careful at moving the color and luminance sliders, and sharpening sliders, the image is almost identical to the 1dx.

Now the 1dx will go to much higher iso than 1600, though once past that it's smooth but loses DR, depth and some sharpness and the detail can be recovered some at let's say 3,000 iso, but the file will suffer.

The OMD in comparision to all the cameras I've mentioned is much, much sharper, some of it do to processing, some the olympus primes which are very fast, very sharp.

The OMD though is a much more difficult camera to work than the pansonic which is much more intuitive.

Really in 43 the best of both worlds is a pana with the oly primes.  You get sharpness, better color and a more usable camera, probably the same would hold true for the gh7, but even the gh7 pretty much tops out at 1,000 iso.

The real king of high iso and quality is the fuji with the x trans sensor.

IMO

BC
« Last Edit: September 05, 2013, 07:24:32 AM by bcooter » Logged

Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1279


« Reply #2 on: September 05, 2013, 08:51:29 AM »
ReplyReply

if you want video above amateur quality then go w/ Panasonic, otherwise Olympus has weaker AA filters

you expectations of 2 stop improvements are totally unrealistic, you can expect 1 stop by going to the current Sony sensors (GH3 & recent Olympus models, no serious tests of GX7 so far).
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5548



WWW
« Reply #3 on: September 05, 2013, 09:05:59 AM »
ReplyReply

... If your using a full frame Canon and set it at F4 at 1600 iso and shoot a gh3 or omd at f. 2.8 at 800 iso you have essentially the same exposure, same depth of field and pretty much the same noise level...

The numbers you used should be correct for an APS-C sensor, no? For a 4/3 sensor, the equivalent then would be f/2.0 at 400 ISO.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2013, 10:07:48 AM by Slobodan Blagojevic » Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
xpatUSA
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 293



WWW
« Reply #4 on: September 05, 2013, 09:32:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Over the last couple of years GH2 has become my "pick up and go" camera with 14-140, 100-300 and 20/1.7. (I have DPmerrills and 5d2/Zeiss for other stuff). However, a bit more digging, e.g. on Imaging Resource website suggests these comparisons based on jpegs and that Olympus routinely apply more in-camera sharpening than Panasonic.

I have a GH1 and was a bit surprised about the sharpness reference in regard to Olympus. I did some slant-edge testing on the GH1 and had to set the sharpening to minimum to get a edge response with no overshoot. So Olympus sharpening must be pretty fierce . .

Of course, this single comment is statistically insignificant and others' experience may well vary.
Logged

best regards,

Ted
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1279


« Reply #5 on: September 05, 2013, 09:38:28 AM »
ReplyReply

The numbers you used should be correct for an APS-C sensor, no? For a 4/3 sensor, the equivalent then would be f/2.0 at 400 ISO.

the difference in SNR or DR between FF with sensor from Canon (6D for example) and m43 with sensor from Sony (GH3) is more than 1 stop , but less than 2 stops (even when Canon is @ ISO1600, and Canons do better @ higher ISOs)... now if you are talking about FF w/ sensors from Sony or Nikon... or may be you will move further up in gain-land like to ISO12800 and take 1Dx then you may have 2 stops.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2013, 09:41:49 AM by Vladimirovich » Logged
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1279


« Reply #6 on: September 05, 2013, 09:40:02 AM »
ReplyReply

I have a GH1 and was a bit surprised about the sharpness reference in regard to Olympus.

which Olympus though ? and are you talking about in camera JPGs ("and had to set the sharpening to minimum") ?
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5548



WWW
« Reply #7 on: September 05, 2013, 10:09:08 AM »
ReplyReply

the difference in SNR or DR...

I should have made clear I was referring specifically to the "the same exposure, same depth of field" part.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
xpatUSA
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 293



WWW
« Reply #8 on: September 05, 2013, 10:21:38 AM »
ReplyReply

which Olympus though ?

Which Olympus, indeed . . I was actually responding to Nigel in the OP where he said:

Quote
On the face of it the Panny GX7 looks like what I need (well want would be more accurate!) but those indications of image quality available still suggest the OMD E5 or the EP-5 (latter too expensive with vf) are better. However, a bit more digging, e.g. on Imaging Resource website suggests these comparisons [are] based on jpegs and that Olympus routinely apply more in-camera sharpening than Panasonic.

Quote from: Vladimirovich
. . and are you talking about in camera JPGs ("and had to set the sharpening to minimum") ?

As far as I know, in-camera settings like sharpness, saturation, etc. only apply to in-camera JPEGs. I would not expect such settings to apply to RAWs. My apologies for not making that clear enough . . .
« Last Edit: September 05, 2013, 10:23:31 AM by xpatUSA » Logged

best regards,

Ted
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1279


« Reply #9 on: September 05, 2013, 10:31:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Which Olympus, indeed . . I was actually responding to Nigel in the OP where he said:

As far as I know, in-camera settings like sharpness, saturation, etc. only apply to in-camera JPEGs. I would not expect such settings to apply to RAWs. My apologies for not making that clear enough . . .

because when you deal w/ raws Olympus clearly has weaker AA filter (see DxO tests), GH-series is done for videographers too and w/ current state of things Panasonic does make AA filter there relatively thick to help that populace.
Logged
stever
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1063


« Reply #10 on: September 05, 2013, 10:51:00 AM »
ReplyReply

the main advantage of Olympus (and the GX7 to an extent yet to be tested) is sensor image stabilization with a variety of fast primes - but with limited usefulness for action.  the new Olympus with Sony sensor should be some improvement over the older generation cameras - but I would not expect more than one stop.
Logged
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1279


« Reply #11 on: September 05, 2013, 10:58:04 AM »
ReplyReply

the main advantage of Olympus (and the GX7 to an extent yet to be tested) is sensor image stabilization with a variety of fast primes - but with limited usefulness for action.
and with a shutter induced shock along (for a certain range of shutter speeds, irrelevant to focal length of lens mounted).
Logged
xpatUSA
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 293



WWW
« Reply #12 on: September 05, 2013, 01:20:56 PM »
ReplyReply

I said:

Quote
in-camera settings like sharpness, saturation, etc. only apply to in-camera JPEGs. I would not expect such settings to apply to RAWs

You said:

because when you deal w/ raws Olympus clearly has weaker AA filter (see DxO tests), GH-series is done for videographers too and w/ current state of things Panasonic does make AA filter there relatively thick to help that populace.

Please explain what your response has to do with what I said.

I have no interest in Olympus cameras, one MFT is enough for me. So I won't be looking at the DxO tests but I suppose the OP might.
Logged

best regards,

Ted
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1279


« Reply #13 on: September 05, 2013, 01:52:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Please explain what your response has to do with what I said.
you were clarifing your prev. words, I was clarifying my prev. words... that's it.
Logged
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1058


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #14 on: September 05, 2013, 02:45:41 PM »
ReplyReply

The numbers you used should be correct for an APS-C sensor, no? For a 4/3 sensor, the equivalent then would be f/2.0 at 400 ISO.

no not really.  but I wasn't doing a scientific test, just tried to match the look.  But I cropped the 35mm sensor from 2:3 to 4:3 which means I had to step back which means it pulled more dof.

Maybe not F2, or 2.8 but something in between.

My point is for close to the same look, you don't need 1600 iso if 800 will do and I'm not saying the gh3 or omd is better, but they're good enough for professional work.

I find all the new Canons that go to high iso lose a lot once they get to and past 1600.  There is a lot of smoothing that goes on and I'd rather have the option to do it all myself rather than the camera.

IMO

BC
« Last Edit: September 06, 2013, 08:32:58 AM by bcooter » Logged

xpatUSA
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 293



WWW
« Reply #15 on: September 05, 2013, 09:07:39 PM »
ReplyReply

you were clarifing your prev. words, I was clarifying my prev. words... that's it.

Forget it, Vlad. If you're trying to irritate, you have succeeded. One up to you   Roll Eyes
Logged

best regards,

Ted
NigelC
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 515


« Reply #16 on: October 03, 2013, 07:36:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Returning to quite old thread, the conclusion I have drawn is that whilst there are significant differences in jpegs, where the OMD E5 seems to have particularly high acuity, there is not that much difference in raw between GH2, GH7 and OMD5. Unless the operation/functionality gains with the GX7 are decisive, it would be more cost effective to invest in more a sophisticated noise reduction tool than Lightroom/Photoshop has. When I've got the time I'll see if I can try out some of these to compare to Adobe efforts.

Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad