Olympus D EM10

[Thunderer]

My mind is turning to thinking a 4/3 camera system would be much easier to carry and use than my SonyDSLR system.

But is image quality from a new 16mp 4/3 Olympus sensor in an EM5 or 10 capable of matching my 16mp APS-C sensor in my A580 when printed to A3 on my Canon Pro 9000? Any real world experience that you could share that would help in answering the question would be much appreciated. I am interested in sharpness, tonality, noise and dynamic range. I have searched web sites but information about printed output seems scarce.

Being an old former film user I always assumed that bigger film was noticeably better than smaller film but does that also apply to digital.

And I should also say that real world performance is what I would like to know about rather than theoretical limits.

Jeff

[ChrisLumix]

My mind is turning to thinking a 4/3 camera system would be much easier to carry and use than my SonyDSLR system.

But is image quality from a new 16mp 4/3 Olympus sensor in an EM5 or 10 capable of matching my 16mp APS-C sensor in my A580 when printed to A3 on my Canon Pro 9000? Any real world experience that you could share that would help in answering the question would be much appreciated. I am interested in sharpness, tonality, noise and dynamic range. I have searched web sites but information about printed output seems scarce.

Being an old former film user I always assumed that bigger film was noticeably better than smaller film but does that also apply to digital.

And I should also say that real world performance is what I would like to know about rather than theoretical limits.

Jeff

 

All I can give you is the results of my own research, not practical experience (except that my new camera uses a mFT sensor!). From what I've gleaned, mirrorless systems that use the mFT sensor are NO WORSE, and can be better, than APS-C. I don't know the Canon Pro 9000, but if it's a genuine Pro camera, you'd find it hard to match cameras but you'd match sensors easily. You might argue that the mFT is smaller than APS-C and therefore inferior ... well, it will certainly have a slightly greater crop factor than APS-C, but set against that the fact that cameras and lenses are smaller too, and the rear element of the lens is closer to the sensor.

 

mFT sensors are used in Olympus and Panasonic cameras - Zuiko and Leica lenses - so you should have no difficulty printing up to A3 with good sharpness, IMO. Yes, I understand the film argument, but film emulsion was of a finite grain size for each ISO, so it would ALWAYS be true that for a particular ISO, 35mm would beat the pants off 110, and 6x6 off 35mm, and so on. Differences in cameras were more dramatic then than they are now, and those differences would show up within the same format; it's far less true now. Even with different size sensors, differences are less dramatic : you have 1" Sony sensors with 20MP, larger mFT with 16MP, and they are both very capable. In some senses, the manufacturers of smaller sensors work overtime to make their products 'reach the mark': you would be very hard pressed to tell the difference between any of the mentioned sensors in anything but the lowest light. Full format sensors would have a greater dynamic range, but it wouldn't be dramatic compared to mFT or APS-C or even 1".

 

For me, I'd say you should go ahead with confidence as long as you don't expect a professional-level camera to be matched by something less.

[Thunderer]

All I can give you is the results of my own research, not practical experience (except that my new camera uses a mFT sensor!). From what I've gleaned, mirrorless systems that use the mFT sensor are NO WORSE, and can be better, than APS-C. I don't know the Canon Pro 9000, but if it's a genuine Pro camera, you'd find it hard to match cameras but you'd match sensors easily. You might argue that the mFT is smaller than APS-C and therefore inferior ... well, it will certainly have a slightly greater crop factor than APS-C, but set against that the fact that cameras and lenses are smaller too, and the rear element of the lens is closer to the sensor.

 

mFT sensors are used in Olympus and Panasonic cameras - Zuiko and Leica lenses - so you should have no difficulty printing up to A3 with good sharpness, IMO. Yes, I understand the film argument, but film emulsion was of a finite grain size for each ISO, so it would ALWAYS be true that for a particular ISO, 35mm would beat the pants off 110, and 6x6 off 35mm, and so on. Differences in cameras were more dramatic then than they are now, and those differences would show up within the same format; it's far less true now. Even with different size sensors, differences are less dramatic : you have 1" Sony sensors with 20MP, larger mFT with 16MP, and they are both very capable. In some senses, the manufacturers of smaller sensors work overtime to make their products 'reach the mark': you would be very hard pressed to tell the difference between any of the mentioned sensors in anything but the lowest light. Full format sensors would have a greater dynamic range, but it wouldn't be dramatic compared to mFT or APS-C or even 1".

 

For me, I'd say you should go ahead with confidence as long as you don't expect a professional-level camera to be matched by something less.

Thanks for reply

I have done similar research. It was real life experience I was after. Possibly someone who has changed from APS-C to MFT.

I don't think there is a fundamental difference in sensors of the two sizes. I think the main difference is that the camera designer can put the rear element of the MFT closer to the sensor because there is no flipping mirror or mirror box to work around.

My Canon Pro9000 is my printer! So what matters is the quality of a 12" x 16" print emerging from that printer.

My comments about film referred to the pictorial quality difference between say 35mm and 60 x 60mm negatives but recognising that, for example, 35mm lenses were designed to resolve more detail than a MF lens and with meticulous attention to technique much of the theoretical difference could be overcome so far as sharpness is concerned and maybe tonality.

I asked the original question because two of my three lenses are full frame lenses and large and heavy and my A580 is heavy and when lugging them plus tripod etc about last week over Jeffrey Hill I got talking to a man who had just bought an Olympus MFT camera and he let me have a play with it. It felt like a lightweight toy

If I could satisfy myself that I could match current print quality with that from MFT Iwould be very strongly consider changing systems. Also the availability of relatively cheap prime lenses is a pull to MFT.

Jeff

[Black Pearl]

Up to a 'reasonable' ISO you'd be hard told to tell them apart, dynamic range is likely to be a little lower due to the smaller pixels but careful RAW shooting and RAW processing will make the difference irrelevant.

Where you might spot the difference is when you try to get a very shallow depth of field - the smaller sensor is going to make that harder but that will depend on your shooting style and the types of shots you take.

[JHFoto]

I went down the four thirds route a couple of years ago thinking I would reduce the weight I had to carry around. Panasonic Lumix G5 was my choice of camera but by the time I had a few decent lenses the weight difference was not that much. In my opinion image quality was never quite what I expected so I managed to sell the lot for decent money and went back to Nikon DSLRs...

[Black Pearl]

Your other option is to stick with APSC but switch to a mirrorless system like the Fuji X range. Just as good a sensor (better in the vast majority of cases) that any APSC DSLR and with a range of quite exquisite and tiny primes backed up with some lovely and light weight zooms. 

 

If I was starting over (like Phil) or had the cash to switch I'd go Fuji every time.

[JHFoto]

Each man to his own, there would be a lot less choice if we all agreed........

[Guest]

Can't help you with the Olympus but I have just bought a Fuji X and am just stunned by the quality of sensor, lenses and lightness of the system.

[JHFoto]

Your other option is to stick with APSC but switch to a mirrorless system like the Fuji X range. Just as good a sensor (better in the vast majority of cases) that any APSC DSLR and with a range of quite exquisite and tiny primes backed up with some lovely and light weight zooms. 

 

If I was starting over (like Phil) or had the cash to switch I'd go Fuji every time.

 

There is the problem the Sensor

[Black Pearl]

Sorry but I've no idea what your point is - if you even have one.

[JHFoto]

The size of the Sensor is very small in bridge and four third cameras.....?......That is my point.....

[Black Pearl]

The Fuji XT-1 has an APSC sensor - the same size as the one in your Nikon. Yes the M4/3 sensors are smaller but that's not relevant to this camera and I've no idea why you've brought bridge cameras up as they aren't part of the discussion.

Might be worth you checking your facts and thinking about offering actual advice before you reply again as snide remarks won't be tolerated.

[ChrisLumix]

The size of the Sensor is very small in bridge and four third cameras.....?......That is my point.....

 

Wrong. A 'very small' sensor would be 1/2.33, and even there they can produce good results in good lighting conditions. The mFT sensor is comparable to a APS-C sensor, which is what the original post was all about. And the difference in size is cancelled out by the lenses being closer to the sensor as there is no mirror to worry about.

 

And then you have to take lenses into account. The best Zuiko and Leica lenses are way better than Canikon kit lenses, and very much smaller and lighter.

[Guest]

First lets put the myth that four thirds is vastly smaller than APS-C to bed. If you want a big jump in sensor size go ful lframe and all that it involves

Most of my images posted on this forum are from four thirds sensors

Also bear in mind that because of the slight increase in DOF that you can use say f/1.8 to get the same dof as f/2.5 on APS-C and so can us over a stop lower ISO to get the same shot.

 

Next I have used Canon DSLR's and the Pentax K-30, I now use the E-M5,E-M10 and E-P5 and can honestly say that there is little difference in image quality just the weight and I personally would not change back but that's just me.

 

I believe in tests the E-M10 beat quite a few new DSLR's in dynamic range and High ISO so image quality is no longer a factor unless your into massive prints but 30x20 inches should be possible at low ISO without cropping. I have 20x16inch prints hanging on the wall from four thirds sensors that are not as good as those available now.

 

Now for the caveat, if you are into fast action where you need CAF a lot then four thirds is definitely not for you.

 

Real life ISO example from a processed Raw file

 

E-M5 and 60mm Macro,ISO 3200 f/4@1/60sec with 100% crop

 

 

Out of focus areas

 

Now I am not trying to convince you either way just lay out the facts as I know them from personal experience, what camera you use is personal decision that only you can make and you have to live with it so please do not take this a  effort to convince you but just to put some of the myths about four thirds into perspective.

Edited December 10, 2014 by OlyPaul

[JHFoto]

To be honest due to ill health and the fact I can no longer carry my Nikon and my lenses I am thinking of buying to most capable super zoom bridge camera. I do a lot of wildlife so I need the longest lens available. I need something that is all in one with no other bits to carry around. Any recommendations would be good..

Thanks in advance..

[ChrisLumix]

To be honest due to ill health and the fact I can no longer carry my Nikon and my lenses I am thinking of buying to most capable super zoom bridge camera. I do a lot of wildlife so I need the longest lens available. I need something that is all in one with no other bits to carry around. Any recommendations would be good..

Thanks in advance..

 

If you do a lot of wildlife and don't mind a very small sensor, the zoom range of the Lumix FZ70 is very very wide. However, if you are prepared to 'crop/zoom' a little, it might be worth thinking of the Lumix FZ1000 - it uses the Sony 1" sensor, has a wide zoom range, is about the size of a medium DSLR but of course you don't need to carry extra lenses around. It has been very highly reviewed.

[JHFoto]

Yes I have looked at these cameras the trouble with the FZ1000 is its zoom is not as long as the FZ200 or Fuji HS50EXR, I must say anything with a Lieca lens cannot be all that bad.

[Thunderer]

Up to a 'reasonable' ISO you'd be hard told to tell them apart, dynamic range is likely to be a little lower due to the smaller pixels but careful RAW shooting and RAW processing will make the difference irrelevant.

Where you might spot the difference is when you try to get a very shallow depth of field - the smaller sensor is going to make that harder but that will depend on your shooting style and the types of shots you take.

Thanks for reply. I agree with what you say. Ie it is the quality of pixels and their carefull use that counts.

[Thunderer]

Your other option is to stick with APSC but switch to a mirrorless system like the Fuji X range. Just as good a sensor (better in the vast majority of cases) that any APSC DSLR and with a range of quite exquisite and tiny primes backed up with some lovely and light weight zooms. 

 

If I was starting over (like Phil) or had the cash to switch I'd go Fuji every time.

Or a Sony A6000?

[Thunderer]

Wrong. A 'very small' sensor would be 1/2.33, and even there they can produce good results in good lighting conditions. The mFT sensor is comparable to a APS-C sensor, which is what the original post was all about. And the difference in size is cancelled out by the lenses being closer to the sensor as there is no mirror to worry about.

 

And then you have to take lenses into account. The best Zuiko and Leica lenses are way better than Canikon kit lenses, and very much smaller and lighter.

Indeed yes. I guess I am asking for a comparison of old full frame lenses on a Sony 16mp sensor forced to be further from the sensor by the mirror with a new design lens optimised for digital capture ( light not striking sensor at a fairly acute angle) placed closer to the newer Sony 16mp sensor. And the aspect ratio of 4:3 is closer to my usual print size - usually about 12" x 16" so fewer pixels are thrown away.

Jeff

[Thunderer]

First lets put the myth that four thirds is vastly smaller than APS-C to bed. If you want a big jump in sensor size go ful lframe and all that it involves

Click image to view large

Most of my images posted on this forum are from four thirds sensors

Also bear in mind that because of the slight increase in DOF that you can use say f/1.8 to get the same dof as f/2.5 on APS-C and so can us over a stop lower ISO to get the same shot.

 

Next I have used Canon DSLR's and the Pentax K-30, I now use the E-M5,E-M10 and E-P5 and can honestly say that there is little difference in image quality just the weight and I personally would not change back but that's just me.

 

I believe in tests the E-M10 beat quite a few new DSLR's in dynamic range and High ISO so image quality is no longer a factor unless your into massive prints but 30x20 inches should be possible at low ISO without cropping. I have 20x16inch prints hanging on the wall from four thirds sensors that are not as good as those available now.

 

Now for the caveat, if you are into fast action where you need CAF a lot then four thirds is definitely not for you.

 

Real life ISO example from a processed Raw file

 

E-M5 and 60mm Macro,ISO 3200 f/4@1/60sec with 100% crop

 

Click image to view large

 

Out of focus areas

Click image to view large

 

Now I am not trying to convince you either way just lay out the facts as I know them from personal experience, what camera you use is personal decision that only you can make and you have to live with it so please do not take this a  effort to convince you but just to put some of the myths about four thirds into perspective.

Thanks for your real life observations. It is print quality that matters to me so your info. is relevant to my question. And I rarely do action shots and usually shoot at ISO 100 - although if low light capture was very good I would probably use higher ISOs more often.

Jeff

[Thunderer]

To be honest due to ill health and the fact I can no longer carry my Nikon and my lenses I am thinking of buying to most capable super zoom bridge camera. I do a lot of wildlife so I need the longest lens available. I need something that is all in one with no other bits to carry around. Any recommendations would be good..

Thanks in advance..

I had a Panasonic FZ with an enormous range lens. Within it's limitations it was good but that tiny sensor's 10mp produced noticeably poorer prints than Sony a100 10mp. But on a laptop screen for which 10mp seems overkill there seemed little difference.

Jeff

[ChrisLumix]

I had a Panasonic FZ with an enormous range lens. Within it's limitations it was good but that tiny sensor's 10mp produced noticeably poorer prints than Sony a100 10mp. But on a laptop screen for which 10mp seems overkill there seemed little difference.

Jeff

 

Which one, out of interest? There's been several 'families':

 

• the original FZ30 & FZ50 which had slightly larger sensors than what followed, more manual control, but comparatively short zoom range
• FZ8/18/28/38/47 - smaller sensors, longer zooms, less manual control
• FZ100/150/200 - change to CMOS sensor (though still small), increasing zoom range, faster lenses
• FZ1000 - much larger sensor (1"), slightly reduced zoom range, but far higher IQ than what went before 

Edited December 10, 2014 by ChrisLumix

[Thunderer]

Which one, out of interest? There's been several 'families':

 

• the original FZ30 & FZ50 which had slightly larger sensors than what followed, more manual control, but comparatively short zoom range
• FZ8/18/28/38/47 - smaller sensors, longer zooms, less manual control
• FZ100/150/200 - change to CMOS sensor (though still small), increasing zoom range, faster lenses
• FZ1000 - much larger sensor (1"), slightly reduced zoom range, but far higher IQ than what went before 

FZ28 I think.

One really good aspect was the available full manual control in RAW. The lens had a remarkable range.

I got it secondhand with known provenance after I got fed up changing DSLR lenses as I climbed a hill on Eigg on a windy day and kept getting left behind and worrying about dirt on the sensor.

It was good for on screen pictures but prints bigger than 8" x 10" were somewhat lacking.

I subsequently got a second DSLR body and was able to readily change between bodies with different lenses but witha weight penalty.

Jeff

[Korky]

A very interesting thread, this. However...

 

You can accuse me of peeing on the parade if you wish, but there's one thing that hasn't been mentioned - a large sensor, expensive lenses, a big-name badge on the front of the camera and having 18k of kit stored in the wardrobe does not a good photographer make.

 

For proof of this, take a sken at the quality work BP produces on his iPhone.

 

I have a friend who owns more expensive kit than I'll ever be able to afford, but he's never produced a worthwhile image in the fifteen years I've known him. Hope he doesn't read this!

 

Korky