Comparison of E-M1 and GX8

Discussion in 'This or That? (MFT only)' started by drd1135, Sep 10, 2015.

  1. drd1135

    drd1135 Zen Snapshooter

    Mar 17, 2011
    Southwest Virginia
  2. NoSeconds

    NoSeconds Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Strange that the extra mega pixies apparently count for nought... :confused-53:
  3. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    Not strange at all. The pixel increase is 25% in area - which equates to about 11% in linear dimensions. That's very little real-world difference.
  4. NoSeconds

    NoSeconds Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Sorta like saying the 12MP - 16MP upgrade achieved bugger all...?
  5. Rudy

    Rudy Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Jan 24, 2013
    Oakland, CA
    They made big improvements to the quality of the pixels at that time.
    The 20MP sensor didn't do that, so the image quality hasn't actually improved much, if at all.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. Jonathan F/2

    Jonathan F/2 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 10, 2011
    Los Angeles, USA
    I don't think one can judge the pixel difference with those shots, I think shooting telephoto subjects such as wildlife will show an advantage. Also if you shoot long exposure shots, the new sensor looks to be better.

    "The biggest difference can be found in how the sensors handle long exposures with NR turned to OFF. The E-M1 produces noisy files while the GX8 files are clear of noise. However, it isn’t really a big issue because the E-M1 can create star trails/light paintings in-camera with its Live Composite mode."
  7. agentlossing

    agentlossing Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Jun 26, 2013
    Andrew Lossing
    So, they're comparing both files at 100% crop, right? Therefore the GX8 is a larger/higher magnification image so if you're comparing sharpness at 100% they may look the same, but if the GX8 was sized down 11%, would it appear sharper than the EM1?
  8. bassman

    bassman Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Apr 22, 2013
    New Jersey
    The Bassman
    It might BE sharper, but it's really hard to SEE an 11% increase in linear resolution.
  9. wjiang

    wjiang Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    The long exposure thing is not really an improvement for the GX8, the E-M1 is just unusually bad. The older E-M5 Sony sensor was actually better, for instance.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. val

    val Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Dec 19, 2013
    The JPEG sample really shows the difference between Oly and Panasonic. I just don't know how Panasonic have gone all this time with such a JPEG engine. It's clearly inferior to the competition.

    Also the Oly RAW files just seemed sharper and punchier.
  11. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    For me, I literally don't even care if my interchangeable lens cameras shoot JPEGs, since I never do. The JPEG engine matters less to me than any other feature on the camera. For a while I've shot JPEG + RAW on the off chance that I might use a JPEG for something. But in the end I just have a whole bunch of wasted space and duplicate images.

    It looked like the per-pixel image quality is near enough to identical on the GX8 as the E-M1. So you get an extra 25% pixels for free. Seems like a no-lose situation, unless you're really strapped for hard drive space, or something.
  12. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Legend

    Have they ever?
  13. jrsilva

    jrsilva Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 1, 2012
    They count for cropping pictures without losing so much.
  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.