More statements from JIP

Lcrunyon

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 4, 2014
Messages
2,129
Location
Maryland
Real Name
Loren
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.
That‘s a bit misleading. Lenstips performs its tests shot from a camera of that system, so the measurements already factor in sensor size. There is a reason why lenses are more important than bodies. A sensor can only interpret what resolution the lens provides, it can’t make the image a lens takes in any sharper than it already is.

This is from the Lenstips website FAQ...

“14. Why do Olympus lenses have the best resolution results, Nikkor, Pentax and Sony lenses – average and Canons – the worst?
It’s an effect of testing lenses on different bodies. The Canon 20D has the smallest number of pixels so the maximum results, that a lens can reach on it, exceed slightly the level of 44 lpmm. Lenses tested on 10-megapixel sensors of a Nikon D200, a Sony A100 or a Pentax K10D achieve maximum results of 47 lpmm. Olympus’s sensors are the most densely packed with pixels so in tests conducted on an E-3 we can see results exceeding even 50 lpmm. Small wonder, though, because 10 megapixels of an E-3 on a small format 4/3 sensor gives the same density as 16 million cells on a DX format sensor...”

Olympus lenses are underrated marvels because they can keep up with the resolution requirements of such densely pixel packed sensors. This also means that sensor breakthroughs could matter a lot for m4/3, and it is a shame that we haven’t had them.

However, what Lenstips can’t show, which of course matters in the real world (as opposed to a lab), is how large the size of the image as it is displayed. This determines how much the image has to be blown up to fit the viewing size. M4/3 creates a smaller image which has to be blown up more than full frame, and of course this negatively effects resolution and noise visibility.

But in my experience, and as I believe @pdk42 ’s example shows, this generally just evens out the differences. It also means that unless you are cropping heavily, viewing large and/or pixel peeping, the differences from this effect aren’t even noticeable. In the end, IQ comparisons are really subtle stuff that simply don’t matter as much as and/or as often as people think they do.

Even as the size of full frame bodies have shrunk with mirrorless, and even though standard range lenses aren’t all that much different in size, there are still things M4/3 can do with size that the other formats cannot. The Olympus pro lenses and bodies, however, are not that. They instead utilize the saved real estate to enable the placement of other features, such as class–leading image stabilization and weather sealing, and further pushes for innovations that in my opinion are the Olympus brand’s true strengths. The genius is that they do all this by only compromising slightly on IQ – which really doesn’t matter as much as most people think. Because of this last point, I always find comparisons of Olympus pro lenses and non-pro versions of other formats to be very misleading.

People should choose the format based on their preferences, and sometimes full frame is going to be the better choice. But that choice isn’t nearly so black and white as the m4/3 naysayers suggest.
 
Last edited:

amit

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Oct 10, 2019
Messages
220
EM10 Mark II and Amit, I pronounce you man and wife !
Ha ha ha ! The second one looks sharper...
I assume these are ooc jpegs ,so what can we learn from it?
That oly makes better jpegs? Or maybe that the pana 25mm f1.7 is sharper then the nikon zoom?

Can you please upload the raw files?
 

Pluttis

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2016
Messages
996
Location
Sweden
Real Name
Peter
I would think its RAW files, converted/edited to match each other and then resize to same size ?

What we can learn from it? That its hard to see a diffrence or any diffrence at all in the final out put images unless they are verry big or pixel peeping.
 

RS86

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
797
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
I would be interested to see 100% crops of center & edges + EXIF info, if you don't want to put full files here. I bet many others would be interested too.

Just not totally sure how to look at 100 % from 46MP vs 16MP file. Does it show it correctly automatically, or should I zoom to make both at the same size, hmm.
 
Joined
Jan 5, 2020
Messages
113
Well, top one is...



the Nikon.
You can say for sure I did not expect that one.
As others have said, would love to have full-size images for comparison. Are E-M10ii files actually sharper than Nikons files?
Does the Nikon actually produce warmer images than the Olympus by default? I did not get this vibe from the SOOC picture galleries, such as this one: Nikon Z5 sample gallery: new samples from DPReview TV: Digital Photography Review
Did both cameras use standard/AutoWB settings for the images?

Well, as they say, you can learn something new every day.
 

PakkyT

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
3,767
Location
Massachusetts, USA
At first glance I keep thinking the bottom one is ever so slightly sharper with less loss of details. But the when I pick a spot and go back and forth they start to look the same. I wonder if it is simply the slight yellow cast the top one has that makes it appear at first glance less sharp? At any rate, what this proves is for that type of shot, sensor size really doesn't matter. No one is going to see that shot and say "oh I need to zoom in and look at individual leaves."
 

pdk42

One of the "Eh?" team
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
7,337
Location
Leamington Spa, UK
Both are shot raw and tweaked in LR to be as close as possible to each other. That was the point. I’m happy to provide original raws and the LR recipes if anyone is interested, but that really isn’t the point.

The point is that for this type of shot (base ISO, daylight, only slight cropping, rendered 2048 pix wide for online), there is no practical advantage the Nikon offers. Of course, there will be more challenging scenes where the Nikon will be more suitable, but even then, there are tricks the Oly can do to even things up - great image stabilisation, HHHR, really nice bracketing feature with über fast e-shutter, ... And then the Oly brings portability advantages, cost advantages, lens range advantages, and feature advantages (live time/comp, liveND, focus stacking, over/under indicators on live view preview, pro capture, ...).

I’m no fan boy of m43 for its own sake- I liked the Nikon and I can see lots of use cases for it where m43 would struggle, but for what I use a camera for (mainly landscape) the Oly ticks more boxes. I would think a similar argument applies for studio work, street, macro, architecture/cityscape, and travel. I’m less convinced about event work (incl weddings) where its weaker ISO performance will hurt (and IBIS won’t help), and sports (ISO perf and still not class-leading AF). Wildlife I’m not experienced enough to comment, but seems to me that FF has ISO advantages that are well worth having, but they come with size/weigh/cost penalties so it seems anything will be a compromise. Having said that, I’ve seen excellent wildlife results from m43 as well as other formats so I guess it as much about technique and knowing your gear as much as the gear itself.
 

Mike Wingate

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 21, 2017
Messages
3,374
Location
Altrincham
Real Name
Mike Wingate
Both are shot raw and tweaked in LR to be as close as possible to each other. That was the point. I’m happy to provide original raws and the LR recipes if anyone is interested, but that really isn’t the point.

The point is that for this type of shot (base ISO, daylight, only slight cropping, rendered 2048 pix wide for online), there is no practical advantage the Nikon offers. Of course, there will be more challenging scenes where the Nikon will be more suitable, but even then, there are tricks the Oly can do to even things up - great image stabilisation, HHHR, really nice bracketing feature with über fast e-shutter, ... And then the Oly brings portability advantages, cost advantages, lens range advantages, and feature advantages (live time/comp, liveND, focus stacking, over/under indicators on live view preview, pro capture, ...).

I’m no fan boy of m43 for its own sake- I liked the Nikon and I can see lots of use cases for it where m43 would struggle, but for what I use a camera for (mainly landscape) the Oly ticks more boxes. I would think a similar argument applies for studio work, street, macro, architecture/cityscape, and travel. I’m less convinced about event work (incl weddings) where its weaker ISO performance will hurt (and IBIS won’t help), and sports (ISO perf and still not class-leading AF). Wildlife I’m not experienced enough to comment, but seems to me that FF has ISO advantages that are well worth having, but they come with size/weigh/cost penalties so it seems anything will be a compromise. Having said that, I’ve seen excellent wildlife results from m43 as well as other formats so I guess it as much about technique and knowing your gear as much as the gear itself.
Well summed up.
 

pake

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Messages
2,367
Location
Finland
Real Name
Teemu
I got this info from a reliable source:
The business has not transferred to China. The imaging company is relocating from the Olympus HQ outside of Tokyo to another site near Tokyo. While the organisation is slimming down globally, over 100 R&D staff have been retained.
That doesn't sound that bad now does it?
 

BrianLa

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Feb 8, 2020
Messages
119
This was genuinely funny:

This self-confidence is underpinned by the success of the PC “VAIO” business. It returned to profitability in the fiscal year ended May 2016, and has continued to increase profits every fiscal year

Sony sold Vaio brand to JIP in 2014 and the next time anyone anywhere heard about Vaio again was in 2018 when this logo appeard on the cover of a generic OEM laptop which JIP tried to sell on premium thanks to olde-worlde premium brand.

Since JIP never even tried to sell Vaio laptops in Europe, our US counterparts might be able to tell whether they
a) do even recall this brand anymore, let alone
b) have actually purchased one lately.

Assuming that Sony actually paid JIP to take over this business as is typical in these cases and JIP invested exactly $125 in R&D (i.e. ordered Vaio logo to be printed on an off-the-shelf laptop), it was indeed a profitable move for JIP but pre-2014 VAIO customers might not have been that excited about the outcome.

Disclaimer: I was happy with the quality of my 2007 Sony Vaio laptop but thanks to low end processor for the price and Windows Vista (sic) I was able to not only brew coffee while waiting it to boot up but actually grow and roast coffee beans as well. It did serve me well for years with Ubuntu Linux though.
Current Vaio laptops are very much not generic and have a strong presence in the business market. Watch PS5 videos and see what laptop is being used.
Brian
 

BrianLa

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Feb 8, 2020
Messages
119
Now camera wants. Do we have the bits for a facelifted EM-1x? The new 24.5mp sensor, two truepic ix and a 3.6m dot oled seems like a good start for a cheap facelift to me.
Brian
 

pake

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Messages
2,367
Location
Finland
Real Name
Teemu
New sensor doesn't sound like a cheap facelift to me!
Well... It might not be cheap but that's pretty much all it takes. Everything else is already there. And actually that one is a "must". Without a new sensor m4/3 might lose credibility for many users. The new sensors are already there, they (OMD & Pana) just need to start utilizing them.
 

pdk42

One of the "Eh?" team
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
7,337
Location
Leamington Spa, UK
Well... It might not be cheap but that's pretty much all it takes. Everything else is already there. And actually that one is a "must". Without a new sensor m4/3 might lose credibility for many users. The new sensors are already there, they (OMD & Pana) just need to start utilizing them.
I agree. I hope JIP just get on with it.
 
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