In this weeks AP Angela tested images produced with cameras that have full frame, APS-C or Micro Four Thirds sensors. Nikon D3, D300 and Lumix G1 were the cameras used as they all have 12mp and each has different sensor size.
Despite having the smallest sensor the G1 outperformed by resolving more detail than both of the other cameras in test conditions.
David
" ENCEFFC!" "ENNSEAEFFSEA!"" ENNCEFFC!" "ENNCEEFC!"
Thats interesting David. When I did my unscientific tests some weeks ago, I discovered that at low iso (100, 200) the G1 resolved equally to the D300 and D700 whilst the E-30 was softer and required more sharpening than the others (and even then could not reach the same resolution - although some current tests developing orfs through Oly Master make it very close).
The problem I saw with the G1 was that at higher iso the image degraded quite badly whereas the E-30 was far more consistent. Clearly there is a compromise here - Oly taking a slightly different route to Pany. What it does prove is that the new Pany sensor does have potential. Hopefully Oly engineers are feverishly working on improving resolution and high iso performance for use in the new E-3. I shall remain optimistic
Chris
The D3 was found to be a consistent performer at most ISO and its low light ability is its strength. However under normal/average consumer conditions the G1 had better resolution. I thought it was an April fool article to start with but this is good news for Four Thirds and i think the final nail in the coffin of the doubters. The format in this and MicroFT form is here to stay.
David
" ENCEFFC!" "ENNSEAEFFSEA!"" ENNCEFFC!" "ENNCEEFC!"
If AP had tested cameras with equal (or at least approximately so) pixel pitch (pixels density) the results would have been quite different. But they chose to test cameras of widely differing pixel pitch, but a similar number of pixels, so the results are not really surprising at all. Substitute the Nikon D3x or the Sony a900 (both with a pixel pitch of 5.9 µm) for the Nikon D3 (8.45µm) and the results would have been very different. Using the Canon 50d with 4.7 µm pitch would have been a closer match at the APS size.
The most probable reasons are that the E-30 uses a stronger anti alias filter than the G1 and if you were doing your tests on raw using Adobe ACR then the other reason is that ACR does not get the maximum detail out of the E-30 compared to other raw converters and the fault as been acknowledged by Adobe and awaiting a fix though you are only going to see the difference at pixel peeping level.Thats interesting David. When I did my unscientific tests some weeks ago, I discovered that at low iso (100, 200) the G1 resolved equally to the D300 and D700 whilst the E-30 was softer and required more sharpening than the others (and even then could not reach the same resolution - although some current tests developing orfs through Oly Master make it very close).
Keep on snapping and catch the moment if you can.
Paul
Almost certainly due to having a lens designed to a smaller circle of confusion and/or the back focus adjustment being more accurately set.In this weeks AP Angela tested images produced with cameras that have full frame, APS-C or Micro Four Thirds sensors. Nikon D3, D300 and Lumix G1 were the cameras used as they all have 12mp and each has different sensor size.
Despite having the smallest sensor the G1 outperformed by resolving more detail than both of the other cameras in test conditions.
You cannot seperate out the resolution of the lens and the sensor when measuring the results from the system as a whole.
Fact of the matter remains, a sensor with smaller pixels is going to have more image noise. That's an inescapable consequence of the quantum nature of light.
If you're not living on the edge, you're wasting space
And I thought the zone system and densitometry was complicated!
I would have expected the resolution at low iso to be the same. As Angela pointed out the finer pixel pitch of the G1 sensor should resolve better than than the D3 sensor given an identicall detailed target in the image plane. In the tests all shooting distances were adjusted so as to fill the frame with the target chart. It follows that the image in the full frame camera was twice the size (linearly) compared to the Olly. It should all cancel out. The fact that it didn't is a feather in the cap for Olympus. Of course as iso increases so does noise and the D3 wins hands down. It would have been nice if Angela had included a D3x but I suppose it wouldn't have done any more than confim what we would expect. It is interesting that Richard Sibley compares the D300 against the E-30 in the same issue. In real photography the Olly loses some of it allure.
Taking both articles together I feel that four thirds may well do what I want and I look forward to a compact style mft camera from someone like Olympus.
I hope that this thread does not get lost. It could justifiably could have been in a number of rooms. It deserves to be visible to more than regular participants of the Olly threads.
I have not read the article yet so I should not really be commenting but the G1 focusses directly on the sensor so back focus should not be present. This may therefore be an argument for always using live view focussing when doing critical workAlmost certainly due to having a lens designed to a smaller circle of confusion and/or the back focus adjustment being more accurately set.In this weeks AP Angela tested images produced with cameras that have full frame, APS-C or Micro Four Thirds sensors. Nikon D3, D300 and Lumix G1 were the cameras used as they all have 12mp and each has different sensor size.
Despite having the smallest sensor the G1 outperformed by resolving more detail than both of the other cameras in test conditions.
Roger
I thought Angela was quite clear in her findings.
A year or so past the same question was asked and it was clear that sensor size DID matter and this was reflected in the test images.
What i understood form the article was technology has improved so that for the majority of consumers it DOESN'T matter and won't have a negative effect on image quality.
In other words a consumer no longer has to sacrifice image quality for convenience in a small package, they can have both if they wish.
David
" ENCEFFC!" "ENNSEAEFFSEA!"" ENNCEFFC!" "ENNCEEFC!"
It's really simple ...
photosite number = resolution limit (more better)
photosite size = lack noise (bigger better)
Big sensor with large number of photosites best.
Depends on your point of veiw and back.It's really simple ...
photosite number = resolution limit (more better)
photosite size = lack noise (bigger better)
Big sensor with large number of photosites best.
Full size sensor = over double the weight and larger= bad back or awkward to lug around.
If bigger is better was the only consideration 35mm would never have been so popular as it was.
Keep on snapping and catch the moment if you can.
Paul
Well not really ..
Full size sensor = over double the weight
Olympus E-30 4/3 730 grams
Sony a900 FF 850 grams
A body is not much use without a lens so for example:Well not really ..
Full size sensor = over double the weight
Olympus E-30 4/3 730 grams
Sony a900 FF 850 grams
Oly E30 + 70-300 f4 = 730 + 620 gms (all stabilized)
Sony A900 + 140-600 F4 stabilized - Does this even exist
Second edit: the E620 weighs 475 gms which is not far off half the A900 weight
Sony A900 + 140-600 F4 stabilized - Does this even exist
... yes please if it does
I may have somewhat over praised the Oly as I should have mentioned that it is in fact F4/5.6. Also I did not realise that the Sony also had in body IS - my apologies for any over enthusiasm.
Incidently I was updating the firmware on my copy and the internet connection failed half way through so the lens is now back with Oly to have the firmware reloaded properly. If anybody else is updating their firmware I suggest that they use a cable connection, not a wireless link
Roger
Don't apoligise he would need a 140-600mm f/4-f/5.6 Sony lens to get the same equvalent and I hate to think what that would weigh. Of course he could get the Sony 70-300 and crop his image by half but that would negate the advantage of full frame would it not?I may have somewhat over praised the Oly as I should have mentioned that it is in fact F4/5.6. Also I did not realise that the Sony also had in body IS - my apologies for any over enthusiasm.
Roger
In fact after looking most of the top Sony lenses to match the focal lengh of Zuiko weatherproof lenses weigh double and I'm not even sure they are weatheproof as Sony is a bit shy about that information.
Keep on snapping and catch the moment if you can.
Paul
Resolution of a monochrome target is only one quality. Noise has already been mentioned. There is also the requirement of having many possible levels spread across a wide range of illumination. Size clearly does matter but for many purposes the four thirds sensor is more than adequate.
That's a somewhat misleading paraphrase of what was said - the conditions described were "ideal" in the studio, and "bright" outside - most certainly not "normal/average".However under normal/average consumer conditions the G1 had better resolution.
David
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
