1. Welcome to Mu-43.com—a friendly Micro 4/3 camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Compact System Camera Image Quality - An Analysis

Discussion in 'Micro 4/3 News and Rumors' started by Pelao, Aug 30, 2011.

  1. Pelao

    Pelao Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Feb 3, 2010
    Ontario, Canada
    • Like Like x 4
  2. nickthetasmaniac

    nickthetasmaniac Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 11, 2011
    Very interesting until you get to the 'Comparison Table Between CSC and dSLR Formats', and which point... w.t.f.?

    The table makes vague sense if they were specifically comparing Micro Four Thirds to a full-frame dSLR, but they aren't - they're comparing CSC as a format, to dSLR, as a format... But about half of it (Megapixel Count, Noise in Bright Light, Noise in Low Light, DR in Bright Light, DR in Low Light, Print Size) makes absolutely no sense if they're comparing NX or NEX to an APS dSLR, given that in many cases the sensors are identical...

    Usually I'm a big fan of LL, but this article has me scratching my head. :confused: 
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Did anyone else wonder what exactly the article was trying to explain? Are they trying to compare CSCs with full-frame DSLRs?

    It seemed more like a list of dictionary definitions with an extra sentence tacked on the end of each, ostensibly attempting to compare formats.

    I think the article might have made more sense if this...

    ...had been reduced to this...

    ...with the end statements for each section removed, and the title changed to "Camera Image Quality".
    • Like Like x 3
  4. mauve

    mauve Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 9, 2010
    Paris, France
    I'm exactly like you : WTF ? LL being what it is, we can assume they are comparing FF DSLRs with :43: CSCs, and more or less agree until we reach "camera shake" counted as a - for :43: and + for DSLR.

    1) this metric was never quantified in the article body - what are they talking about ?
    2) we all know the larger the format, the worst the shake ! Why do you think field cameras *have to be on a heavy duty tripod* (and most MF cameras shouldn't be used hand held) ?

    This pseudo issue is unsubstantiated at best, but mostly totally wrong.

    If you really fear camera shake with :43:, use a tripod or OIS / IBIS, and delay the firing of the shutter (deep in Olympus menus, don't know for pany). It won't shake at all.

    This is a surprisingly bad article from that reputable site; CSCs may not be suited to what make LL readership tick, but there's no point in spreading F.U.D (fear, uncertainty, doubt).

    • Like Like x 1
  5. Pelao

    Pelao Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Feb 3, 2010
    Ontario, Canada
    I found it a little useful as a summary of the various factors, so yes, I think you nailed it.

    There are a lot of CSC users on LL, and the owner himself is a big MFT fan. I also don't see how it spread any F.U.D..
  6. retnull

    retnull Mu-43 Regular

    Feb 12, 2010
    Beg to differ: LL regularly publishes poorly conceived, poorly written articles.

    I still check 'em out; but, I expect very little!
  7. scotth

    scotth Mu-43 Regular

    Feb 3, 2011
    lula seem like a mixed bag to me. I keep them in my feed reader because there is sometimes an article I am interested in, but a lot of what they publish is not really relevant to me and some of it is just not that well written.
  8. Herb

    Herb Mu-43 Regular

    Aug 16, 2011
    LL article

    Seems like an ok article. The + for dslr for camera shake probably results in their comment about the csc being lighter.

    My own plan is to take some RAW with a tripod, print them at least 8x10, and compare to 35mm film scanned from my Zeiss Ikon also 8x10
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.