More statements from JIP

NCV

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
424
Location
Italy
Real Name
Nigel
I have a dog in this race since I swapped from an EM1.2 to a Z7 this summer but subsequently decided to swap back! My primary use is landscape. I used the 12-100 extensively with the EM1.2 and bought the 24-200 on the Z7 to give me much the same capability. The lenses are about the same size and weight. I also had the 14-30 and the 24-70 f4 lenses for the Nikon. The 14-30 and 24-70 I found to be absolutely superb. Very sharp over very nearly all the frame, even wide open. The 14-30 did suffer from some loss into the corners, but it was not a deal-breaker.

However, I was a bit disappointed in the 24-200. It's by no means a bad lens, but it's not as good as the other two, esp near the long end, and it feels like a cheap lens in comparison. In fact, compared to the Oly Pro lenses, none of the Z lenses felt as good (but of course this is just subjective and counts for nothing in the final result). There is also a lot of purple fringing on the 24-200. On top of all that, the Sync IS on the Nikon is a long way behind that on the EM1.2 + 12-100. Looking at other alternatives at 200mm with the Nikon, there was only the 70-200 f2.8, but that's just huge (and expensive)!

On top of all that, I missed the Oly camera's features, speed, and ergonomics. And although the NIkon files are certainly better, I didn't find it was making that much practical difference to the output I was producing (mostly on-line with some A2-sized prints).

So, whilst I thought the Nikon was a very nice camera, it wasn't the silver bullet I thought it might be and that actually I just preferred shooting with the EM1.2.
The 24-200 is very dependent like a lot of modern lenses on software. The results were horrible in DXO, I could not get capture NX to work for me, but I get nice results in Capture 1. I think much of your disappointment might be a question of lens profiles, especially concerning CA problems. Agreed CA's are the weak point of this lens.

Frankly, the lightweight build does not seem cheep in my opinion, sure it is not comparable to my old Nikkor 180 2.8 for build quality, maybe it is the use of lightweight modern plastics that give an impression of "cheapness". The 24-200 lens is my go to lens for hiking and travel. Any optical defects are made up for by the practicality of this lens.

It reminds me of the problems I had matching the Panasonic 12-35 to the EM5. Only DXO seemed to be able to cure the green blue fringing. Once the camera lens and software triangle was perfected, it was a brilliant combination. But the out of camera JPEGs were horrible.

For me, getting past lens sharpness measurements, I have far more post processing control over the Z7 files. I think the quality and malleability of the large Z7 files are the main reason for going Nikon Z. I also am able to use my old Nikon Ai glass on the format it was designed for.
 

RS86

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
722
Location
Finland
I'd look to the Nikon Z 24-70 f/2.8 which shows more improvement than their slower kit 24-70mm f/4 lens. Ricci in his Youtube channel does a comparison between the f/2.8 and f/4 24-70mm zooms and the f/2.8 really does beat the f/4 overall but at a price.

View attachment 858932

https://www.lenstip.com/591.4-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_Z_24-70_mm_f_2.8_S_Image_resolution.html
We have talked here about similar size lenses for Nikon as Olympus Pro lenses. Lenstip doesn't yet have review for the Nikon Z 24-200mm, so the 24-70mm f/4.0 is closest in performance.

Your chart shows the center sharpness for that lens. This is the edge of FF for the f/2.8 lens.

249560_roz3.png
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


I'll add that these charts between formats cannot be compared like for like. Although I think the "decency level" can give indications.

I'm just pointing out the differences in "diffraction weirdness" against the claims. And also that Olympus Pro lenses seem to comparatively be better at the edges than Nikon Z FF f/4+ lenses.
 
Last edited:

pdk42

One of the "Eh?" team
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
7,304
Location
Leamington Spa, UK
The 24-200 is very dependent like a lot of modern lenses on software. The results were horrible in DXO, I could not get capture NX to work for me, but I get nice results in Capture 1. I think much of your disappointment might be a question of lens profiles, especially concerning CA problems. Agreed CA's are the weak point of this lens.

Frankly, the lightweight build does not seem cheep in my opinion, sure it is not comparable to my old Nikkor 180 2.8 for build quality, maybe it is the use of lightweight modern plastics that give an impression of "cheapness". The 24-200 lens is my go to lens for hiking and travel. Any optical defects are made up for by the practicality of this lens.

It reminds me of the problems I had matching the Panasonic 12-35 to the EM5. Only DXO seemed to be able to cure the green blue fringing. Once the camera lens and software triangle was perfected, it was a brilliant combination. But the out of camera JPEGs were horrible.

For me, getting past lens sharpness measurements, I have far more post processing control over the Z7 files. I think the quality and malleability of the large Z7 files are the main reason for going Nikon Z. I also am able to use my old Nikon Ai glass on the format it was designed for.
Yes, I agree that the Z7 files do give more latitude for PP. But OTOH, I do a lot of PP on my shots and I find that I can usually get what I want out of the Oly files too - perhaps sometimes helped by some exposure bracketing or some other image stacking technique. Take a look at my Flickr page and let me know if you agree!
 

NCV

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
424
Location
Italy
Real Name
Nigel
Actually your lens charts show us that you will get far more definition with the 24-70 F4 when shooting with a Z7, than you will with an EM +12-100.

These charts show line pairs/mm, but does not take into account thee sensor size. As the size factor between M43 and FF is 2, you must multiply the Nikon 24-70 results by 2 to give a scaled comparison.

Doing this, the picture becomes very different and you show in fact that one will get more defined pictures on the Z7. This is easy to see in practice when I compare the detail in my 24-70 shots with those on my old 12-35 2.8. In fact scaled the 12-100 is quite poor in comparison.

This is the same reason why my old 5x4 lenses had much less resolving power than my 35mm lenses, but produced far more detailed pictures thanks to the huge negative.

Of course in the real world at the sizes we view at, both systems give great results.
 

NCV

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
424
Location
Italy
Real Name
Nigel
Yes, I agree that the Z7 files do give more latitude for PP. But OTOH, I do a lot of PP on my shots and I find that I can usually get what I want out of the Oly files too - perhaps sometimes helped by some exposure bracketing or some other image stacking technique. Take a look at my Flickr page and let me know if you agree!
I know you have produced some great work with M43. I am happy with what I have produced too in the past.

We all must use the system and gear that suits us best and you did not gel with the Z system, whilst I have found it to be a big step forward for what i do.

The M43 system truly opened a lot of new doors for me when I changed from a D300 based system, the Nikon F system with my old SH shift lenses and my Z system with a travel/hiking choice of lenses I feel is opening others. My main reason to go for the Z was to cut down on my bulging lens collection. My 3 lens Z system can use my 30 years old Ai lenses and the newer F lenses like a brilliantly sharp 16mm fisheye and the 70-200 F4.
 

Tapper

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Mar 12, 2013
Messages
219
Nikon Z system looks good. New lens roadmap looks promising. I only briefly handled an EOS R and Nikon Z6 last year and I really liked the Z6 in hand.

Maybe I'll buy a FF Nikon Z in a couple of years, but for now Olympus is fine for me. I don't know if I will ever truly retire the Olympus though - the tiny 60mm macro is so nice for unencumbered field macro.
 

RS86

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
722
Location
Finland
Actually your lens charts show us that you will get far more definition with the 24-70 F4 when shooting with a Z7, than you will with an EM +12-100.

These charts show line pairs/mm, but does not take into account thee sensor size. As the size factor between M43 and FF is 2, you must multiply the Nikon 24-70 results by 2 to give a scaled comparison.

Doing this, the picture becomes very different and you show in fact that one will get more defined pictures on the Z7. This is easy to see in practice when I compare the detail in my 24-70 shots with those on my old 12-35 2.8. In fact scaled the 12-100 is quite poor in comparison.

This is the same reason why my old 5x4 lenses had much less resolving power than my 35mm lenses, but produced far more detailed pictures thanks to the huge negative.

Of course in the real world at the sizes we view at, both systems give great results.
Would you care to show some comparisons of these at 100 %? I think many would appreciate them as pics tell more than charts between systems. Maybe downsize Nikon to same size as Olympus? Should be sharper?

Personally I'm intrigued on what Lenstip means with "decent" in different systems. Does anyone have comments or examples?

This photo is 24mm f/11 with the f/4 version, and edges are 2-4 lpmm below decent with Z7, from Lenstip sample gallery. Center is ~4-6 lpmm above decent. Not sure why the photo is this size?

I find it interesting that the center resolution drops so much already at f/11, which is pretty basic landscape aperture. And they really say M43 is more problematic with diffraction.

Camera: Nikon Z7
Parameters: 24 mm, f/11.0, exp. 1/200 s, ISO 100
File: JPEG, 8256×5504 pix, 22.89 MB

nik24-70_24f11.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


https://pliki.optyczne.pl/nik24-70Z/nik24-70_fot23.JPG

https://www.lenstip.com/585.4-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_Z_24-70_mm_f_4_S_Image_resolution.html
 
Last edited:

NCV

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
424
Location
Italy
Real Name
Nigel
Would you care to show some comparisons of these at 100 %? I think many would appreciate them as pics tell more than charts between systems. Maybe downsize Nikon to same size as Olympus? Should be sharper?

Personally I'm intrigued on what Lenstip means with "decent" in different systems. Does anyone have comments or examples?

This photo is 24mm f/11 with the f/4 version, and edges are 2-4 lpmm below decent with Z7, from Lenstip sample gallery. Center is ~4-6 lpmm above decent. Not sure why the photo is this size?

I find it interesting that the center resolution drops so much already at f/11, which is pretty basic landscape aperture. And they really say M43 is more problematic with diffraction.

Camera: Nikon Z7
Parameters: 24 mm, f/11.0, exp. 1/200 s, ISO 100
File: JPEG, 8256×5504 pix, 22.89 MB

https://pliki.optyczne.pl/nik24-70Z/nik24-70_fot23.JPG

https://www.lenstip.com/585.4-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_Z_24-70_mm_f_4_S_Image_resolution.html
Sorry you played the lens chart game and proved to us all with these charts that if they are true, that the 24-70 F$ on a Z7 will produce far sharper pictures than the 12-100 on a M43 camera.
 

RS86

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
722
Location
Finland
Sorry you played the lens chart game and proved to us all with these charts that if they are true, that the 24-70 F$ on a Z7 will produce far sharper pictures than the 12-100 on a M43 camera.
Yeah, you can prove it with photos. Charts between formats are always questionable so nothing is proved. That's why I asked if you can provide the proof.

Again, does someone have comments on why the Nikon 24-70mm f/4 lens gets just somewhat above "decent" in the center at f/11 while we keep hearing that M43 has difficulties with diffraction?

This is very basic landscape aperture, so to me it seems very odd to see this kind of performance.
 

NCV

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
424
Location
Italy
Real Name
Nigel
Yeah, you can prove it with photos. Charts between formats are always questionable so nothing is proved. That's why I asked if you can provide the proof.

Again, does someone have comments on why the Nikon 24-70mm f/4 lens gets just somewhat above "decent" in the center at f/11 while we keep hearing that M43 has difficulties with diffraction?

This is very basic landscape aperture, so to me it seems very odd to see this kind of performance.
I'm interested on what kind of reach does that lens give and what aperture with the Z 7 I/II in crop mode?

Hard to compare at all without this information. Does the crop mode affect the aperture?

Primes are of course smaller and lighter, so Olympus 300mm f/4 is a better comparison?
Here is the Cameralabs review, it is a bit different.

Please man, just admit you were wrong and leave it at that.
 

RS86

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
722
Location
Finland
Here is the Cameralabs review, it is a bit different.

Please man, just admit you were wrong and leave it at that.
I haven't compared the charts to each other at any point. I know about what you said.

I have compared only the "decency" level, and asked if you have proof on what you say about the performance with photo evidence we can all compare and make conclusions about.

If you don't want to prove that Nikon with your lens is as good as you claim, you don't have to.

But nothing is proved if you don't.

My main question always has been about why do people keep on telling about diffraction being a bigger problem with M43 than FF, when you look at these charts and see that FF lens is only somewhat above "decency" level in the center already at f/11.

With my Olympus 60mm Macro I know that the decency level works when I compare my photos of f/16 to ones below that. The decency level is on point with that lens, while f/16 ones are still usable, I use that only in "emergency".

The interesting thing would be to know how different format "decency" levels compare at Lenstip site. And with photo evidence, not charts between formats, which I have said from the start are problematic.

This is not only related to Nikon, as I have looked at the Sony 90mm Macro which is very highly rated, and wondered how that compares to my system.

That lens gets below "decency level" at f/16 and mostly for me f/8 on M43 is not enough, I usually use f/11-f/14 (in FF terms f/22-f/28) in macro.

Actually it seems the Sony lens will only go to f/22? Wtf, so it can't even give the FF f/26 basic macro DoF I require?

But afterall, I think I can get sharper macro images if my hands get tired much less with lighter gear. I usually have to take many photos in succession, hand-held from the same subject, to get the best possible sharpness & background. It's the roughest when you have to keep the camera-setup at above your head level.

https://www.lenstip.com/356.4-Lens_...al_60_mm_f_2.8_ED_Macro_Image_resolution.html

https://www.lenstip.com/561.4-Lens_review-Sony_FE_90_mm_f_2.8_Macro_G_OSS_Image_resolution.html
 
Last edited:

pdk42

One of the "Eh?" team
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
7,304
Location
Leamington Spa, UK
On the Z7 + 24-70 vs m43 + (say) 12-100 question, and as someone who ran both together for a few months, I can say this:

- The Z7 + 24-70 is a fantastic combo. Not much bigger than the EM1.2/3 + 12-40, but definitely delivering more detail/resolution. It's very obvious when you go peeking at 100%
- However, you need to ask yourself what your "decent enough" threshold is

For me, I decided that the Z7 system was giving me more IQ than I needed. Sounds odd, but the Oly wins on many other criteria so I switched back. As an example, one of these images is with a Z7 + 24-70, the other with an EM10.2 (16Mp) + Panasonic 25mm f1.7. Both at base ISO (64 on Z7, 200 on EM10.2). Can you tell which is which?

Image1.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Image2.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

RS86

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
722
Location
Finland
On the Z7 + 24-70 vs m43 + (say) 12-100 question, and as someone who ran both together for a few months, I can say this:

- The Z7 + 24-70 is a fantastic combo. Not much bigger than the EM1.2/3 + 12-40, but definitely delivering more detail/resolution. It's very obvious when you go peeking at 100%
- However, you need to ask yourself what your "decent enough" threshold is

For me, I decided that the Z7 system was giving me more IQ than I needed. Sounds odd, but the Oly wins on many other criteria so I switched back. As an example, one of these images is with a Z7 + 24-70, the other with an EM10.2 (16Mp) + Panasonic 25mm f1.7. Both at base ISO (64 on Z7, 200 on EM10.2). Can you tell which is which?

View attachment 859297

View attachment 859298
Thanks for more information and photos. Somehow I believe it more when not only NCV is telling it. ;)

Anyway, it's very obvious in the corners too? As that seems where the f/4 lens struggles with FF. What about f/11 (M43 f/5.6) where it's somewhat above decency level in the center? What f-number were these two photos?

That's what I'm interested in. Especially the "decency" level on different formats. Have never got an answer to it or the diffraction oddity question.

Top one is M43? Can photo editing affect? I guess that one only because of the blue color of the sky, which is better in 2nd one.

Otherwise I'm at a bit loss about what the tonal transition clear differences here are. Maybe someone can instruct me?
 
Last edited:

amit

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Oct 10, 2019
Messages
203
On the Z7 + 24-70 vs m43 + (say) 12-100 question, and as someone who ran both together for a few months, I can say this:

- The Z7 + 24-70 is a fantastic combo. Not much bigger than the EM1.2/3 + 12-40, but definitely delivering more detail/resolution. It's very obvious when you go peeking at 100%
- However, you need to ask yourself what your "decent enough" threshold is

For me, I decided that the Z7 system was giving me more IQ than I needed. Sounds odd, but the Oly wins on many other criteria so I switched back. As an example, one of these images is with a Z7 + 24-70, the other with an EM10.2 (16Mp) + Panasonic 25mm f1.7. Both at base ISO (64 on Z7, 200 on EM10.2). Can you tell which is which?

View attachment 859297

View attachment 859298
All I can tell is that I like the second one more... should I merry my em10ii or buy a z7 ? :)
 
Joined
Jan 5, 2020
Messages
99
For me, I decided that the Z7 system was giving me more IQ than I needed. Sounds odd, but the Oly wins on many other criteria so I switched back. As an example, one of these images is with a Z7 + 24-70, the other with an EM10.2 (16Mp) + Panasonic 25mm f1.7. Both at base ISO (64 on Z7, 200 on EM10.2). Can you tell which is which?
While I'm not entirely sure, I will make an educated guess.

EDIT: That guess was entirely wrong :)
I believe the first one is the Olympus shot while the second is the Nikon shot.
I see a bit more fine detail resolved in the second picture on the roof and tower.

But that is not the reason I for this guess. Rather, it's the Olympus color signature, which I have become quite accustomed to and which I think I recognize in the first picture. Observations from the first picture:

1. Warm tone. This is no secret but Olympus jpegs tend to be warmer than other cameras, which I happen to like generally, (although not in this picture as it provides less separation between the subject and its surroundings).
2. Very warm, reddish tone. This is less known but I did see some difference between this exact camera, which I also owned, and later Olympus cameras, in that the E-M10ii produces files which are warm and slightly reddish by default. The newer E-M1 Mark ii provides slightly more neutral colors with more blue and especially green tint.
3. Cyan skies. Another Olympus trademark that I happen to like, but is probably just a result of the warmer color signature that emphasizes green/yellow more, thus showing less from the blue spectrum.

Of course this all falls apart if one/neither is SOOC jpg. :)

Would love to know if I am right, if so it's a good perspective on how skewed default Olympus colors are by default.
I do applaud Nikon and Canon for their accurate rendering - but in most cases neutral feels cold to me.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

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
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom