Dslr or micro four thirds give better result in jpeg?

Discussion in 'Open Discussion' started by table2011, Sep 6, 2011.

  1. table2011

    table2011 New to Mu-43

    6
    Sep 6, 2011
    Hi..,

    Since I do not want spend more time to edit the raw file, which one give better result in jpeg between dslr and micro four thirds.
    example: maybe between canon 600D and olympus ep3 or panasonic g3?

    I compare dslr with micro four thirds because i want get better picture in jpeg format.
    or maybe between canon/ nikon dslr vs olympus dslr?

    What i can get information is olympus give more better result in jpeg(without any processing) compare other brand.
     
  2. nickthetasmaniac

    nickthetasmaniac Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 11, 2011
    Dslr for sure. The Pentax 645D for instance has amazing jpegs.'as does the Leica S2...
     
  3. Art

    Art Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 13, 2011
    San Francisco, CA
    E-P3 will give you best jpegs out of m43 cams but I think Canon jpegs in low light will still be better. Canon colors are also quite pleasing.
     
  4. drd1135

    drd1135 Zen Snapshooter

    Mar 17, 2011
    Southwest Virginia
    Steve
    :rofl: Be careful what you ask.

    If you compare :43: to APS-C DSLRs or FF DSLRs you will always get the advantages of the bigger sensor, i.e., less noise and usually more dynamic range. Of course, the noise is not really visible unless you make big prints or go to ISOs over 3200 (being conservative here). OTOH, Olympus has a fine JPEG engine so the E-PXX will often give JPEG results that actually look better.
     
  5. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    The 645 and S2 are not DSLR in the usual sense - they are medium format and well out of the price range of someone asking about jpg quality.

    Anyways, back to the OP - you will be hard pressed to see the difference in any normal output mode.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  6. Djarum

    Djarum Super Moderator

    Dec 15, 2009
    Huntsville, AL, USA
    Jason
    The thing with jpeg is you only get 8 bits per RGB value. If we are talking OOC jpegs, it really is going to depend on the JPEG converter. A JPEG engine could easily take a RAW file and make it appear to have the same or even less dynamic range than a micro-four thirds camera. Typically, thats not the case.

    First, The larger sensor well allows for more highlight range. Secondly, if shadows need to be brought up, usually there is less noise.

    For jpeg, here is a decent example:

    Nikon D5100 Review: 14. Dynamic Range: Digital Photography Review

    For the far right camera plug in a Panasonic G3.

    What you end up getting is that the G3 has similar dynamic range to the Canon T3i and one stop less than the Nikon 5100 in jpeg. Very different story when dealing with RAW, however.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. zettapixel

    zettapixel Mu-43 Veteran

    470
    Aug 12, 2010
    NY
    Olympus' JPEG engine is very good. Canon's is not too shabby either. Haven't had much experience with Nikon.

    Any camera will have a JPEG output. The real differences are in the other features: APS-C DSLR have the advantages of bigger sensors (better noise and dynamic range at high ISO, thinner DOF) . :43: cams have the advantages of the smaller sensor (smaller and lighter cameras and lenses) while still being far ahead of P&S.
     
  8. Grant

    Grant Mu-43 Veteran

    I have a GF1 and a D300 if do pixel popping the D300 is way better than the GF1. That is way better~ a controlled situations on a braced and weighted tripod the D300 is much better. But that is not real life. For every day practical purpose they both produce excellent results. For me the advantage of the µ43 is the size, it fits in a pocket, can go with me anywhere and is not obtrusive when I pull it out. The advantage of the dSLR is that it is far more versatile. I didn’t say weight as I almost exclusively use primes and while the GF1 weighs in at about one pound set up the D300 tips the scale just over two pounds so if I can’t handle an extra pound I am in bad shape.

    Now, reading this you probably realize this is all about how I perceive both camera formats in my particular shooting fashion. The bottom line is both cameras formats can deliver excellent results and you should select based on what your shooting needs and fashions are.
     
  9. GaryAyala

    GaryAyala Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    SoCal
    Up to an 8x10 and under ISO 800, you won't see a significant difference between an FF digital camera and a µ4/3.

    Shooting in low light or making large prints ... you will see differences. The larger the print and the lower the light, the greater the differences.

    G
     
  10. goldenlight

    goldenlight Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 30, 2010
    Essex
    John
    I agree with every word of that, Grant. :smile:
     
  11. kevinparis

    kevinparis Cantankerous Scotsman

    Feb 12, 2010
    Gent, Belgium
    disagree here... there is a very perceivable difference between a FF digital camera and a 4/3 and micro 4/3.... well I certainly see it when I compare my 5D Mk2 shots. to my E-510/E-P1 shots... its a combination of shallower DOF and having more pixels to play with do make a difference to my image at any size

    however the difference between 4/3 and the APS-C like the entry level DSLRs is much smaller....probably to the point where the differences can be masked by the skills of the individual photographer and what they demand from their cameras or photography.

    While I understand the OP wanting to get the best results from his choice of camera... basing a decision purely on potential IQ, when there are so many other factors to consider can be difficult.

    The choice of camera should be based on what you want to do with it as opposed to what it can do in an abstract, theoretical sense

    K
     
  12. Art

    Art Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 13, 2011
    San Francisco, CA
    I would think that differences in DR, tonality and DoF between m43 and FF should be seen even in small size prints
     
  13. GaryAyala

    GaryAyala Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    SoCal
    Art & K,

    Significant is a subjective term, so perhaps K, what you see as significant I do not. While I agree that at 100% the FF blows away the µ4/3 ... I don't see a significant dif in IQ up to an 8x10 and under 800 ISO between my GF1 and my 1Ds and 5D. Certainly the DOF is much shallower on the FF, visible at any print size, but DOF is not an IQ issue, it is more a matter of personal style and taste of the shooter. If I toss a bunch of ... say ... 5x7's on a table, one would be hard pressed to separate them into piles according to sensor size.

    I do agree with the OP's usage and style as an important issue. My style or Street Shooting, for example, the inherent stealth of the small camera is of minimal advantage. If the OP desires to shoot action/sports, then a dSLR is the way to go. For travel and hiking, then the m4/3 can make a compelling argument to small size and weight.

    G
     
  14. Art

    Art Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 13, 2011
    San Francisco, CA
    To me the IQ of FF is simply irrelevant anyway as I would never carry anything close to that size outside of the house.
     
  15. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    Well, at 5x7" any 10MP or 12MP camera is going to be giving way more resolution than the printer's line frequency can handle. A better comparison would be to throw a pile of 9x11" photos (a common portfolio size, and one which would use the full resolution of a 10-12MP sensor) on the table... but even then your comparison would still hold out. People would still be unable to discern the difference in sensor size. Print is the great equalizer, lol.
     
  16. GaryAyala

    GaryAyala Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    SoCal
    Okay, prior to my purchase of a GF1, I took my dSLR's everywhere. Last weekend I shot the Brea Jazz Festival with the FF's. I had a great time and captured some good, low light stuff.

    G
     
  17. GaryAyala

    GaryAyala Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    SoCal
    Dunno about printing being the "great equalizer" ... for me printing is the methodology for bringing perspective and significance to the hardware end of photography.

    G
     
  18. goldenlight

    goldenlight Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 30, 2010
    Essex
    John
    DR, possibly. Blown highlights are blown at any print size, but why would you be printing an image with a DR problem anyway? Having previously worked almost exclusively with colour transparency film I always smile when I'm told my DSLR suffers from limited DR.

    Tonality at 10x8 maybe, more definitely at larger print sizes.

    DOF most certainly, although this becomes more obvious the larger the print. But why is it generally regarded that shallow DOF is always a good thing? For certain subjects, yes, but landscapes for instance benefit from extensive DOF. It's a double-edged sword, this one. :smile:
     
  19. Art

    Art Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 13, 2011
    San Francisco, CA
    Although most people these days view pictures on the screen or ipad. Apple cinema screen resolution (soon to be standard) is 2560x1600 while ipad 3 is said to feature 2048x1536 (retina display). Do you think viewing images on those screens will show more difference?
     
  20. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    Yes. But not if you view the entire picture at once on just one screen. ;)