Main weakness of m43 (according do me)

Armoured

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
May 5, 2015
Messages
73
The fact is that I am comparing it for my kit lens 12-32, but this is the widest lens I have. Maybe its quality at the edges is not sufficient to correct distortion without IQ impact? At 12mm end this lens has around 6% distortion, but even the so called PRO lenses, like Oly 12-40 or Pana 12-35 have around 5-6% distortion at the wide end.

I think if this is an issue for you, you really should be looking at and comparing to prime lenses. Wide zooms and particularly kit zooms are just going to have more distortion. This is also going to be true for dslrs and other mirrorless - zooms have more trade-offs and one of them is distortion.

Note, I'm not saying your comparisons are correct or that this is / isn't a problem; to each their own. Software correction is a big help, and as noted, most digital systems do these corrections and zoom lenses in particular are designed based on the assumption these corrections will be applied. Most primes though have much less distortion (some variance of course based on other design trade-offs).

But it seems to me that if you believe it is a problem, you really need to try wide primes, as they're mostly known to have significantly less distortion. Horses for courses.

Making claims about this being a specific issue with MFT compared to other systems based only on a kit zoom seems quite off base.
 

John King

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 20, 2020
Messages
2,672
Location
Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
Real Name
John ...
Quote from Lenstip, here:

https://www.lenstip.com/497.4-Lens_...ED_12-100_mm_f_4_IS_PRO_Image_resolution.html

"4. Image resolution
The resolution test of the Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12–100 mm f/4 IS PRO was based on RAW files from the Olympus E-PL1. In the case of that body the best fixed focal length lenses can get as high as about 80 lpmm (the record of 83.8 lpmm belongs to the Sigma C 1.4/30 and the Voigtlander 0.95/25 and the Olympus 1.8/75 are not far behind). The decency level we set near 44-45 lpmm."

(Emphasis mine)

Note that this on the 12 MPx E-PL1!

The charts I posted earlier are about 10% better throughout, when this lens was tested on the 16 MPx E-M5 MkII ... i.e better than the named primes.

I wonder just how much better it would test on (say) my 20 MPx E-M1 MkII?
 

doady

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2020
Messages
308
Location
Canada
m4/3 sensor might actually be less demanding physically those for APS-C and full frame. Easier to have superzoom with less compromises for a given size and weight, and better IBIS also helps with detail and sharpness, for example.

I noticed the RAW distortion and vignetting of my 12-100, but it's already a big lens, and superzoom even at that size for difference system with an even larger sensor would compromise even more.

Honestly, what annoys me as a newcomer to m4/3 is moire. Not as simple to correct as distortion and vignetting, but maybe softness from anti-aliasing filter might be even harder to correct. Everything is a tradeoff. If we don't complain about this then maybe we would complain about that. Like, 7-14mm F4 is much heavier than 7-14mm F2.8, but is image quality much better? I don't know. I think I would worry more about the weight difference than the quality difference, but maybe that's just me.
 

wyk

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
233
Location
Ireland
For me, it's two things that anoy me:

Dynamic range and fiddly lens caps. Other than that, I like the format.
But I shoot mainly landscape. If I shot more street, I would be happier with the 43 and use my Fuji and Sony systems less.
 

pdk42

One of the "Eh?" team
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
7,455
Location
Leamington Spa, UK
The second one being easy to fix by purchasing the type of lens caps you prefer. Can't help you on the first though.
@wyk
I can help on the first - do one of these:

- Use HHHR. It dramatically cuts shadow noise

- Use Live ND. It also dramatically cuts shadow noise

- Shoot a bracketed burst and stack later. The 60 FPS electronic shutter on the EM1.2/3/x captures it quicker than you can say “DR”.
 

wyk

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
233
Location
Ireland
The second one being easy to fix by purchasing the type of lens caps you prefer. Can't help you on the first though.

Not really. But this is a personal thing. It's not the type as much as it is the size. I have to use UV filters and just avoid caps.
 

wyk

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
233
Location
Ireland
@wyk
I can help on the first - do one of these:

- Use HHHR. It dramatically cuts shadow noise

- Use Live ND. It also dramatically cuts shadow noise

- Shoot a bracketed burst and stack later. The 60 FPS electronic shutter on the EM1.2/3/x captures it quicker than you can say “DR”.

That's the thing. I have to shoot bracketed, and often times photo merge. Meanwhile on my Sony A7 and Fuji XT, it's not necessary. One shot usually does it.
Thus, it's a bit of a bothersome short fall of 43. But we all knew that already. That's why you were aware of and made the suggestions.

My main camera is a Fuji XT. But as a photographer from the film days, I am a bit biased. I mostly use my 43 for travel and for night photos that have people in them.
IBIS just has a huge advantage there with the great Panny 25mm 1.7 lens.

Which brings me to the advantage part of 43 - cheap lenses, especially used. Fuji lenses have silly resale, especially for the build quality on some of them.
 

pdk42

One of the "Eh?" team
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
7,455
Location
Leamington Spa, UK
That's the thing. I have to shoot bracketed, and often times photo merge. Meanwhile on my Sony A7 and Fuji XT, it's not necessary. One shot usually does it.
Thus, it's a bit of a bothersome short fall of 43. But we all knew that already. That's why you were aware of and made the suggestions.

My main camera is a Fuji XT. But as a photographer from the film days, I am a bit biased. I mostly use my 43 for travel and for night photos that have people in them.
IBIS just has a huge advantage there with the great Panny 25mm 1.7 lens.

Which brings me to the advantage part of 43 - cheap lenses, especially used. Fuji lenses have silly resale, especially for the build quality on some of them.
Of course we know that DR is more limited on m43. But does it really matter? I'm mostly a landscape shooter so I decided to try out the Nikon Z system last summer and picked up a Z7 with a couple of lenses (14-30 and 24-70, a MF fisheye and briefly the 24-200 f4-f6.3). Without doubt DR was better, but in all truth I could not say that the technically better IQ was doing anything in terms of the end result - for me that means on Flickr and social media postings, and on prints up to A3. Maybe, just maybe, a larger print might show the difference - but I'd bet it would take a pair of very large prints from each camera and doing a direct A/B compare for most people to see it. Pixel peeking in LR on a hi res monitor will reveal the differences more easily, but that's not what photography should be about.

Meanwhile, I found the Nikon cramped my shooting - poorer IBIS, slower e-shutter readout, bigger and heavier camera and lenses, narrower shooting envelope, fewer clever features like over/under blinkies, LiveComp/LiveTime, Live ND etc. In any case, nature often throws DR at a scene that exceeds that of any camera so there is always the need to do some trickery. I find that the EM1.3 is quite capable of delivering excellent end results for high DR scenes. This for example was a stack of 3 images at -2,, 0, +2 and took about 100mS to capture. The DR was extreme:

50594542503_250349b8df_o.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

The Bridge by Paul Kaye, on Flickr

I took the shot whilst on a photo walk with a friend who was shooting with a Nikon D850. Here's his version, which was a single shot but with PP:

50594431563_7a3f57d648_o.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Grand Union Canal, Hatton, England by Martyn Osborne, on Flickr

Setting aside the different colour interpretations, I don't think the Oly version loses anything to the Nikon version.

This one is a slightly lower DR scene and it's a single shot with a fair degree of shadow lifting and highlight compression:

50652328043_a1eaec4c2c_o.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Baddesley Clinton by Paul Kaye, on Flickr

And here is the version from my friend with his D850:

50676118382_a006c75fbd_o.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Badesely Clinton, Warwickshire, England by Martyn Osborne, on Flickr

Again, colour temperature differences for sure - but there's nothing about the Nikon's technical superiority that makes for a better final result.

Now I'm not in the least bit saying that FF isn't the absolute right choice for many photographers. Certainly if you need shallow DOF on wider lenses (environmental portraits etc), or better high ISO noise performance (sports, wildlife) then it's an obvious choice - but I think the DR argument is overdone.
 

John King

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 20, 2020
Messages
2,672
Location
Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
Real Name
John ...
I agree.

Actually, Paul, on examining many, many FF and mFTs images here and elsewhere, I am more than just satisfied with my own choice of gear. There is a slight DR advantage to the bigger sensor, and ditto with noise at high ISO, but most of the time, I prefer the sheer sharpness of the mFTs system and lenses. My better lenses are just that - better ...

I can also see that in your comparison shots, even without using the HHHR, just using bracketing, there is better tonality and detail within that tonality. It would (and does) show more in print. On my R3880, I have printed a number of really nice FF shots, and they just aren't as good as my FTs/mFTs shots, side by side, with and without a loupe. I don't use bracketing or HDR.

No one has to believe me about this, just IMHO. Up until fairly recently, I had 20/20 vision without glasses, and 20/12 with them. My colour vision also appears to be noticeably better than that of my artist friends (and wife). Particularly the Sony 20 MPx sensor in my E-M1 MkII shines in this. The CFA is brilliant. However, the inferior sensor in my 16 MPx E-M1 MkI does a really quite excellent job of it, if I keep the ISO down a stop.

AND, no camera whelped has terrific DR at the higher ISOs.

I worked out the total DR of average human vision, using astronomical information. Astronomers use orders of magnitude based on powers of about 2.568, or thereabouts - just for convenience!

[Edit] I just looked this up, it's actually powers of 2.512. [End edit]

The Sun has a magnitude of -26, and the moons of Jupiter are around magnitude 6. The faintest stars people can see are about magnitude 6, but people with good night vision can see down to about mag. 8 from a dark sky site. Now, the eye/brain system is weird, and cannot see mag. -26 to +6 in the same field of view (that's around 2.568^32 ... ), so the range of the human visual system is far greater than any camera, and it sometimes fools us into thinking that we can see a fair chunk of this at once. It's a bit cleverer than cameras!

[Edit] 2.512^32, as per above correction. [end edit]

I think that the basics of focus, shutter speed, composition and seeing are far more important than absolutes like DR. In some 100,000+ digital images on my HDDs, I am yet to photograph a test chart or test scene.

Just a few thoughts, FWIW.
 
Last edited:

wyk

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
233
Location
Ireland
Of course it matters. Any significant advantage is an advantage.
Remember - you are talking to someone who is a member here for 8+ years and has owned half a dozen 43 cameras.

Those are lovely photos. But if you want to impress folks, you could show them something like this:

171244592.KI5meMmp.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


So that's over exposed. A raw image straight out of a GX80 from a 3 EV bracket, at +1EV - enough to expose for the river and some shadows. It has to be a bit over on the 43, because you really can't bring up shadows on the 43 too much(but too much over and that data is lost, too). And losing highlights in this situation isn't too much of a handicap because of how I intended to edit it, and because the light is very soft to begin with.

Here it is after editing:

171244591.mRQw9E8G.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


I think that image has like 20+ thumbs up where I posted it here(thanks!). It has about an hour of editing and I still brought the reds out a bit too much :(.
I tried to edit the neutral EV version from the bracket, but the shadows were just too dark, and it got noise and lost detail fast. Ireland, ya know... we're not famous for our sunlight.
If you look at the two images, you'll note the lovely backlit area up the brook that appears to be bathed in sunlight is purely constructed in editing, as are the colours and the warmth. It is a greasy hazy misty Irish day - there ain't no direct sunlight on squat. That is using a brush in software and adjusting the exposure levels. I used the captured over exposed shadows to highlight the brook and better silhouette the trees. Also, it's easier to add colour when you don't lose the shadows.

So if anyone tells you they can't play with 43 files, show them that.

What impressed me was I did that at 1/4 second to help make the water more fluid without a tripod because of the IBIS. Though I did lean the camera against a tree.
This means you can't take that photo with any of my other cameras at all(none have IBIS...yet). Not without a tripod. Regardless of dynamic range. Well, mayeb you can, but I can't hold a camera to a tree at 1/4 second for any sharpness...lord knows I've tried.

Here's a silly high dynamic range image I took lately with my Fuji that you would have had to photo merge in my GX80:

171446867.D7m2UyRC._DSF4532.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Looks like a normal photo, right?
The shadows are raised way the eff up there. Like 5 EV. And there is only a hint of noise in the deepest corner, but the Fuji makes it look like film grain somehow. I also took about an EV or two out of the highlights. You could argue that image couldn't happen with a 43 similarly to how the previous image couldn't happen without IBIS. Some would argue why take such a boring photo in the first place. ;)

In other words, why argue? I have both. I just use them to their strengths.
 

archaeopteryx

Gambian sidling bush
Joined
Feb 25, 2017
Messages
1,653
I think the DR argument is overdone.
It is. An 8 bit jpeg has 8.3 stops of dynamic range (the 0.3 comes from some mathematical subtleties) and the last couple stops are hard to see. So, if one's conservative and considers seven stops to be visible for routine viewing of jpeg uploads and adds a couple stops of lifting shadows, then one wants 7 + 2 = 9 stops dynamic range from the original image. That means using less than ISO 800 on a Z7 II or D850 (the two are within 0.05 stop of each other), 500 on a G9, and 400 on the E-M1 III. Comparing ISO 100 on the D850 to ISO 200 on the E-M1 III, as you've done, comfortably exceeds this rule of thumb without the inclusion of noise reduction in post. My G7, with 8.7 stops at ISO 200, is usually fine too.
With a three stop shadow lift this interchangeability is probably starting to break down, since the G9 is at its 10 stop limit and E-M1 III can't quite manage. At five stops a D850/Z7/Z7 II is likely approaching its single frame limits too (Nikon's about half a stop below Canon and Sony at the moment). How much this matters in a practical sense depends on how often one's subjects tend to fall in this range. And, like everything else, it's the folks who frequently encounter limits on shadow lifting who are most likely to talk about it. I would consider @wyk's post a classic example of this phenomena.

Personally, I rarely lift shadows more than a stop from the G7's base curve. It's common I don't adjust them and I probably lower about as often as lift. So the G7 is nearly always fine to ISO 400 and ISO 800 is normally OK. Its 5.1 stop dynamic range at ISO 3200 is pretty meh after noise reduction in darktable but I've used ISO 3200 for one sequence of images in the five years I've had the G7. Certainly makes it difficult to argue there's much of a practical limitation to the sensor in my use.

Prints have a stop or two less dynamic range than display so they're less demanding in this regard. People are likely to spend more time looking at them, though, and probably have higher viewing expectations than scrolling by an image on a screen. So I agree with @John King it's more rewarding to really get the tone curve right in a print.

Looks like a normal photo, right?
Actually, to me, that much of a lift usually feels kind of fake. You seem happy with it, though, so that's cool.

FWIW, it seems to be around three stops my reaction starts to be more likely "that looks like a shadow lift" rather than "interesting image". Out of curiosity I did a recurve and found I moved the shadows to a four stop lift for this one, which was what I was guessing would be my max lift, and might well take them a third or half a stop lower if working in 16 bit post rather than recurving a jpeg.
 
Last edited:

ata3001

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2019
Messages
219
Location
Niagara Falls, NY USA
How do you measure, to claim 5-6% distortion? Not 4% or 7%? Is that with ALL m4/3 lenses? If any lens creates a pleasing image, who cares that it may have a bit of unperceived distortion, distortion that usually isn't seen unless it's pointed out. If the image is pleasing, it will stand on it's own, even if there is 5% distortion.
 
Last edited:

pdk42

One of the "Eh?" team
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
7,455
Location
Leamington Spa, UK
It is. An 8 bit jpeg has 8.3 stops of dynamic range (the 0.3 comes from some mathematical subtleties) and the last couple stops are hard to see. So, if one's conservative and considers seven stops to be visible for routine viewing of jpeg uploads and adds a couple stops of lifting shadows, then one wants 7 + 2 = 9 stops dynamic range from the original image. That means using less than ISO 800 on a Z7 II or D850 (the two are within 0.05 stop of each other), 500 on a G9, and 400 on the E-M1 III. Comparing ISO 100 on the D850 to ISO 200 on the E-M1 III, as you've done, comfortably exceeds this rule of thumb without the inclusion of noise reduction in post. My G7, with 8.7 stops at ISO 200, is usually fine too.
With a three stop shadow lift this interchangeability is probably starting to break down, since the G9 is at its 10 stop limit and E-M1 III can't quite manage. At five stops a D850/Z7/Z7 II is likely approaching its single frame limits too (Nikon's about half a stop below Canon and Sony at the moment). How much this matters in a practical sense depends on how often one's subjects tend to fall in this range. And, like everything else, it's the folks who frequently encounter limits on shadow lifting who are most likely to talk about it. I would consider @wyk's post a classic example of this phenomena.

Personally, I rarely lift shadows more than a stop from the G7's base curve. It's common I don't adjust them and I probably lower about as often as lift. So the G7 is nearly always fine to ISO 400 and ISO 800 is normally OK. Its 5.1 stop dynamic range at ISO 3200 is pretty meh after noise reduction in darktable but I've used ISO 3200 for one sequence of images in the five years I've had the G7. Certainly makes it difficult to argue there's much of a practical limitation to the sensor in my use.

Prints have a stop or two less dynamic range than display so they're less demanding in this regard. People are likely to spend more time looking at them, though, and probably have higher viewing expectations than scrolling by an image on a screen. So I agree with @John King it's more rewarding to really get the tone curve right in a print.

Actually, to me, that much of a lift usually feels kind of fake. You seem happy with it, though, so that's cool.

FWIW, it seems to be around three stops my reaction starts to be more likely "that looks like a shadow lift" rather than "interesting image". Out of curiosity I did a recurve and found I moved the shadows to a four stop lift for this one, which was what I was guessing would be my max lift, and might well take them a third or half a stop lower if working in 16 bit post rather than recurving a jpeg.
It's a real pity that the tech isn't there to provide more of a logarithmic response to light at the sensel level. We really want the sensitivity to tail off as the well fills! That would fix the problem.
 

wyk

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
233
Location
Ireland
Actually, to me, that much of a lift usually feels kind of fake. You seem happy with it, though, so that's cool.

FWIW, it seems to be around three stops my reaction starts to be more likely "that looks like a shadow lift" rather than "interesting image". Out of curiosity I did a recurve and found I moved the shadows to a four stop lift for this one, which was what I was guessing would be my max lift, and might well take them a third or half a stop lower if working in 16 bit post rather than recurving a jpeg.

You are absolutely right. I'm gonna get rid of this Fuji and only use an MFT from here on out. :)
 

archaeopteryx

Gambian sidling bush
Joined
Feb 25, 2017
Messages
1,653
We really want the sensitivity to tail off as the well fills! That would fix the problem.
It's been a while since I worked much with semiconductor devices and quantum mechanics but I can't think of any physical mechanism which would provide that. A more viable approach would probably be a return to Fuji's SR pixels. In principle it's possible to implement a Foveon-style SR by reading from multiple, color-dependent depths within the wafer but I think that would be very difficult to fab.

I'm gonna get rid of this Fuji and only use an MFT from here on out. :)
You're not wrong. :)
 

mfturner

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Aug 6, 2019
Messages
284
Photons to photos is a great resource. There used to be a lot of difference with older sensors, but this site is one of the reasons I converted to mft, because my old Canon 60D wasn't that great, and any 16mpx or better mft sensor was competitive.

The OP's concern about distortion correction robbing resolution, while real, and is used by almost all modern mirrorless systems, doesn't impact the end result of what I photograph since I'm rarely photographing buildings, etc with straight lines. I like being able to trade corner sharpness for distortion with my 9mm bcl for example, it's easy to defish if I want, or as much as I want. Also, most review sites have this built in, they are reviewing corner and edge resolution after SW correction. So you should be able to compare lens resolution online if you want. Photos from my O 14-150 ii are way better than my old 18-200 Canon zoom, comparing similar super zooms.
 

JDS

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Nov 11, 2014
Messages
734
Location
San Francisco, CA
Real Name
David Schultz
Of course we know that DR is more limited on m43. But does it really matter? I'm mostly a landscape shooter so I decided to try out the Nikon Z system last summer and picked up a Z7 with a couple of lenses (14-30 and 24-70, a MF fisheye and briefly the 24-200 f4-f6.3). Without doubt DR was better, but in all truth I could not say that the technically better IQ was doing anything in terms of the end result - for me that means on Flickr and social media postings, and on prints up to A3. Maybe, just maybe, a larger print might show the difference - but I'd bet it would take a pair of very large prints from each camera and doing a direct A/B compare for most people to see it. Pixel peeking in LR on a hi res monitor will reveal the differences more easily, but that's not what photography should be about.

Meanwhile, I found the Nikon cramped my shooting - poorer IBIS, slower e-shutter readout, bigger and heavier camera and lenses, narrower shooting envelope, fewer clever features like over/under blinkies, LiveComp/LiveTime, Live ND etc. In any case, nature often throws DR at a scene that exceeds that of any camera so there is always the need to do some trickery. I find that the EM1.3 is quite capable of delivering excellent end results for high DR scenes. This for example was a stack of 3 images at -2,, 0, +2 and took about 100mS to capture. The DR was extreme:

View attachment 875885
The Bridge by Paul Kaye, on Flickr

I took the shot whilst on a photo walk with a friend who was shooting with a Nikon D850. Here's his version, which was a single shot but with PP:

View attachment 875886
Grand Union Canal, Hatton, England by Martyn Osborne, on Flickr

Setting aside the different colour interpretations, I don't think the Oly version loses anything to the Nikon version.

This one is a slightly lower DR scene and it's a single shot with a fair degree of shadow lifting and highlight compression:

View attachment 875887
Baddesley Clinton by Paul Kaye, on Flickr

And here is the version from my friend with his D850:

View attachment 875888
Badesely Clinton, Warwickshire, England by Martyn Osborne, on Flickr

Again, colour temperature differences for sure - but there's nothing about the Nikon's technical superiority that makes for a better final result.

Now I'm not in the least bit saying that FF isn't the absolute right choice for many photographers. Certainly if you need shallow DOF on wider lenses (environmental portraits etc), or better high ISO noise performance (sports, wildlife) then it's an obvious choice - but I think the DR argument is overdone.
I don't want to start a competition with your friend and I don't know what choices he made vs. you, but wow... I'll just revisit this post if I ever think of switching to Nikon. And I'll remind myself: "if I can't get world-class photos out of this Olympus gear, it ain't Olympus' fault"
 

ABFoz

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Jan 27, 2021
Messages
70
Location
Tamaki Makaurau, Aotearoa
Real Name
No estoy listo para esto todavía.
.xb-attach{ text-align:center; display:inline-block; *display: inline; clear:both; max-width:100% } .lbContainer.lbContainer--canZoom .lbContainer-zoomer { bottom: 24px; }
50594542503_250349b8df_o-jpg.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)​
The Bridge by Paul Kaye, on Flickr
.xb-attach{ text-align:center; display:inline-block; *display: inline; clear:both; max-width:100% } .lbContainer.lbContainer--canZoom .lbContainer-zoomer { bottom: 24px; }
50652328043_a1eaec4c2c_o-jpg.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)​
Baddesley Clinton by Paul Kaye, on Flickr
there is better tonality and detail within that tonality
I don't want to start a competition with your friend and I don't know what choices he made vs. you, but wow... I'll just revisit this post if I ever think of switching to Nikon.
I was about to follow up on the post by @John King regarding tonality last night but I dozed of in front of my keyboard already last night.

With regard to tonality, the colour separation in your shot is just really, really significant, @pdk42. It's one thing veteran landscape shooters are after and also the reason why many still shoot film. When I asked them 5 years ago why they choose MFT for landscape and colour separation was their reply. They said that people rave about dynamic range nowadays but what landscape veterans are after is colour separation, which Pentax and MFT can greatly replicate.
 

RS86

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
971
Location
Finland
Real Name
Riku
I'm pretty sure that Photons to Photos DR-ISO chart should not be used between brands/systems. I'm not sure if even DxoMark should be used like that, but it gives more sensible results. Photons to Photos would make us believe Sony A7III has a bit over 1 Ev difference at high ISO to 20MP M43 PDAF sensor, and to me that makes no sense at all.

Sony A7iii sensor is 1,5 years newer than 20MP M43 PDAF sensor, and had a big jump in performance, so there should be at least that 2 Ev difference as fas as I know. I hope more knowledgeable members will chime in. Can we do PtP chart comparisons now that Olympus has altered their ISO ratings as seen with PtP chart of E-M1ii vs E-M1iii?

DxoMark doesn't have Fuji sensors at all, so cannot compare that X-T3 here, but it also has over 1,5 years newer sensor.

Screen Shot 03-02-21 at 02.02 AM.PNG
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Com...1-Mark-II-versus-Sony-A7-III___1046_1136_1236

Screen Shot 03-02-21 at 12.06 PM.PNG
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

https://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#FujiFilm X-T3,Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II,Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark III,Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark II,Sony ILCE-7M3
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 03-02-21 at 11.50 AM.PNG
    Screen Shot 03-02-21 at 11.50 AM.PNG
    43.3 KB · Views: 19
Last edited:
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom