Best Compact/CSC For ~£400

Sorry I abandoned this discussion last night because I wanted to go to bed. As others have said, the comparison being made was between m43 (and other cscs) versus an entry level DSLR such as a 100D, and my point was that the image quality between the two was broadly the same. I regularly shoot low light aquarium subjects at ISO 1600-6400 and they clean up pretty nicely with a bit of care.

I guess no one ever shot sports or in low light before the D3 came out in 2007 with a useable ISO3200 and opened up these entirely new types of photography...
 
Energize said:
By all means from the comparisons you can clearly see much less noise at ISO ranges 6400-25600 on the D600 vs E-M5 when resized to equivalence, and that's despite the lens and aperture used on the D600 being to it's disadvantage.

That is one of the reasons sports professionals use SLR's.

The only none sane thing is to expect a camera costing a fraction of the price of another with a far smaller sensor to perform as well, more so when published test data and even the laws of physics contradict it.

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D610-versus-Olympus-OM-D-E-M5___915_793
Click to expand...



When you compare a FF DSLR then yes, the difference is much more noticeable at high ISOs. when comparing a crop DSLR the difference is much smaller.


It didn't always used to be this way. the m43 sensors sued to be quite poor, below average performance. They then switched to use a modifier exmor sensor, or at least the ADC and now they are actually above average. The m43 sensors actually output the Canon/nikon/sony crop and FF sensor when accounting for size. i.e., the sensors are better than the D800 and 5DMK3 sensor if they were made FF 35mm.
 
I've been looking for something similar as carry round when I don't want my bag full of gear.
Had some good discussions on other forums about it.
The E-PL5 was highly rated. here are some samples that were linked to for me:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/kempj8/

Also, the Fuji X-M1 (also has free lens offer and under £400 on Rainforest) if you want to get APS-C. Has a slightly better sensor than the X-A1.

One other suggestion was the Sigma DP series Merrill fixed lens cameras.
The quality of the pictures is outstanding, but they are not the easiest or friendliest cameras to use.

I guess the first thing to really decide is whether you need the ability to change lenses.

I am probably leaning towards the Olympus myself because as is mentioned it is more compact and has a better selection of lenses available which i suspect I would want once I start using it.

The Fuji on the other hand I think has slightly better image quality and DOF etc plus I feel slightly more flexibility in the controls without digging into menus.
 
Ksanti said:
Unless I missed something where the hell did the D610 come into the discussion? Nobody was claiming that the M4/3s sensors matched up to Nikon/Sony/Fuji's latest and greatest APS-C sensors and all of a sudden we're slating them because they don't match up Nikon's latest full frame sensors? What a thoroughly pointless discussion.
Click to expand...

I said it didn't compare favorably to APS-C sensors used in other CSC cameras which is what the OP was interested in buying, which I was told was rubbish. Hence me giving DXO mark results showing that performance is poorer compared to larger sensors used in other cameras.

It's a fair comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of 4/3 and APS-C sensors used in CSC's.

Only question is whether it's even worth buying a CSC over a compact given that the op said he's not interested in getting a lens collection and some compacts have better sensors than m4/3 and are fully pocketable.

Though I've never understood the whole carrying around lenses thing, I've never taken more than 1 or 2 lenses with me when out and about.
 
Last edited:
Energize said:
I said it didn't compare favorably to APS-C sensors used in other CSC cameras which is what the OP was interested in buying, which I was told was rubbish. Hence me giving DXO mark results showing that performance is poorer compared to larger sensors used in other cameras.

It's a fair comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of 4/3 and APS-C sensors used in CSC's.

Only question is whether it's even worth buying a CSC over a compact given that the op said he's not interested in getting a lens collection and some compacts have better sensors than m4/3 and are fully pocketable.

Though I've never understood the whole carrying around lenses thing, I've never taken more than 1 or 2 lenses with me when out and about.
Click to expand...

You are completely changing your argument. You had linked to a FF camera, no one has said a m43 camera is as good IQ wise as a FF camera.

What I and others have said with evidence is that the new m43 sensors are more or less as good as most APS-C sensors, including those in other APS-C CSC cameras.

Seriously, the m43 sensors are as good if not better than most APS-C DSLR kicking around. The very best Nikon and Sony sensors pull ahead a little, but it is not a significant difference.
 
Energize said:
I said it didn't compare favorably to APS-C sensors used in other CSC cameras which is what the OP was interested in buying, which I was told was rubbish. Hence me giving DXO mark results showing that performance is poorer compared to larger sensors used in other cameras.

It's a fair comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of 4/3 and APS-C sensors used in CSC's.

Only question is whether it's even worth buying a CSC over a compact given that the op said he's not interested in getting a lens collection and some compacts have better sensors than m4/3 and are fully pocketable.

Though I've never understood the whole carrying around lenses thing, I've never taken more than 1 or 2 lenses with me when out and about.
Click to expand...

I didn't say I wasn't interested in getting extra lenses, just that I doubt I'll be building a huge collection.

As for the quality, there's obviously some increase in quality on the APS-C SLRs and CSCs compared with the M43s, but I don't think it's as much as you were saying. And it comes with the increased size of the lenses, and at the expense of the range available.

It does strike me as a bit odd that to compare the quality between them you chose a full frame SLR? When compared with something like a 100D (similar price to what I'm looking at) the difference isn't nearly as big.
 
I aid this previously but the m43 performance was previously never anywhere near as good as it is currently. The original m43 cameras got a DXO mark score in the mid to low 50s typically and for years there was no improvement what so ever - the same DR, the same ISO etc. They then got help from Sony and put in some serious development time and there sensor scores jumped to the lows 70s. Since then they have done some minor tweaking and pushed into the mid 70s.

If you have used old m43 the new models are completely different and not comparable.
 
There's not that much between a good m43, nex or crop dslr.

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Comp...-D7100-versus-Olympus-PEN-E-PL5___942_865_839

Obviously the a6000 and d7100 also cost a fair bit more than the e-pl5 but still it does pretty damn well

Size wise a nex with the powerzoom is still very portable, but when you put on a more serious lenses it does become larger (still fine for me)

http://camerasize.com/compact/#332,535.360,382.92,535.85,ha,t

You can get the a6000 and 16-50 powerzoom combo imported for £600
 
D.P. said:
If you have used old m43 the new models are completely different and not comparable.
Click to expand...

I think this is very apparent in real world use as well. My old GH2, probably the best of the 'old' style sensors, did produce some good images but you had to be aware and watch for things like flat colours, high-ISO mush and highlight clipping. With the E-M5 I have now, although DXO numbers and the like aren't massively different, it's just much better - noise is easier to clean without losing detail, colours are more vibrant and there's loads of leeway with dynamic range for recovering highlights and shadows.

With this generation m43 sensors genuinely became 'good enough' that you don't see the sensor as a disadvantage.
 
DanF said:
There's not that much between a good m43, nex or crop dslr.

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Comp...-D7100-versus-Olympus-PEN-E-PL5___942_865_839

Obviously the a6000 and d7100 also cost a fair bit more than the e-pl5 but still it does pretty damn well

Size wise a nex with the powerzoom is still very portable, but when you put on a more serious lenses it does become larger (still fine for me)

http://camerasize.com/compact/#332,535.360,382.92,535.85,ha,t

You can get the a6000 and 16-50 powerzoom combo imported for £600
Click to expand...

The a6000 looks like a lovely camera, but £600 is a bit more than I'm wanting to spend really, and I'm not a big fan of imports really :(.
 
DanF said:
There's not that much between a good m43, nex or crop dslr.

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Comp...-D7100-versus-Olympus-PEN-E-PL5___942_865_839
Click to expand...

That graph reminds of one 'trick' that can fool people...

Notice how on the ISO Sensitivity, the Oly is markedly lower then the others, for example, for a indicated ISO1600, the measured ISO is half that (800)..

What that means in practice is that for a given scene, it will meter in more light then cameras with truer ISO Sensitivity.. so for the same aperature/iso setting it's shutter speeds will be noticeable longer..

Still, I like the OLY's, and have no issues with 4/3 sensors, they produce the goods, and having lower ISO sensitivity does mean they will always meter plenty of light, leading to less noise, even if you could achieve the same thing by just lowering the ISO on another brand of camera and still achieve the same metering..
 
D.P. said:
You are completely changing your argument. You had linked to a FF camera, no one has said a m43 camera is as good IQ wise as a FF camera.
Click to expand...

I'm not changing my argument, you seem to be interpreting it differently, in any case it doesn't matter. The sensor data is there clear as day that the op can make his decision on. :)

DAnDan said:
I didn't say I wasn't interested in getting extra lenses, just that I doubt I'll be building a huge collection.
Click to expand...

Semantics aside, I think compact is worth considering if you're not thinking of getting a big collection of lenses and want a small camera given the great sensor performance of the high end compacts, they are comparable to CSC's.

As for the quality, there's obviously some increase in quality on the APS-C SLRs and CSCs compared with the M43s, but I don't think it's as much as you were saying. And it comes with the increased size of the lenses, and at the expense of the range available.
Click to expand...
Yes that's what I said, the APS-C lenses are larger so that is the trade off, I'm not making out a massive difference in sensor quality, but you mentioned that noise was important in your op, for the record I don't think APS-C is great for the aforementioned conditions either.
 
Last edited:
Columbo said:
Have a look at a NEX 6 then, they are very similar.
Click to expand...

It's what I've currently got, it has a 16mp sensor and on paper looks like a better EVF with 2.3m pixels to the a6000's 1.44m. I've not tried the a6000 so don't know what it's like in practice. Nex 6 is a very nice little camera. £450 with 16-50 from the rainforest.

I'd say an EVF is a really useful thing to have on a CSC, rear screens usually don't work very well in bright sunlight ;)
 
Last edited:
Demon said:
That graph reminds of one 'trick' that can fool people...

Notice how on the ISO Sensitivity, the Oly is markedly lower then the others, for example, for a indicated ISO1600, the measured ISO is half that (800)..

What that means in practice is that for a given scene, it will meter in more light then cameras with truer ISO Sensitivity.. so for the same aperature/iso setting it's shutter speeds will be noticeable longer..

Still, I like the OLY's, and have no issues with 4/3 sensors, they produce the goods, and having lower ISO sensitivity does mean they will always meter plenty of light, leading to less noise, even if you could achieve the same thing by just lowering the ISO on another brand of camera and still achieve the same metering..
Click to expand...


Olympus and other m43 cameras do overstate ther ISo by more than the other manufacturers (they all do do this to quite an extent).

HOWEVER, Dxomark scoring takes this into account. When they give an ISO score of say 1283 what they mean is using the true ISO sensitivity standard in a controlled environment where they have an exact 18% gray target and exact lighting they measure the noise. They then try to find the highest ISO setting on the camera that achieves a certain image quality minimum wrt noise/standard deviation, dynamic range and colour depth. I.e, there is no point having an image that has no noise at ISO 1 million if the dynamic range is 0.5 stops because the sensor has done some kind of noise reduction and made a gray smudge. That ISO 1283 might actually be listed as ISO 3200 in the camera but it doesn't really matter when shooting

They also reduce all images to 8MP so you can accurately compare cameras at equal print sizes. E.g., a high resolution camera might have more noise on the pixel level than a lower MP camera but you always display images at a certain size, e.g. 20x30".

This way on DXomark you can accurate compare cameras from different makes and different models with different sensors and different resolutions.


Which is why you should avoid review sites that just compare 2 images side by side shot at the same ISO - they don't take into account the true sensitivity differences. It is very eacy to have 0.5 stops exposure difference without it being too obvious but the noise difference is obviosuly big
 
Demon said:
Notice how on the ISO Sensitivity, the Oly is markedly lower then the others, for example, for a indicated ISO1600, the measured ISO is half that (800)..

What that means in practice is that for a given scene, it will meter in more light then cameras with truer ISO Sensitivity.. so for the same aperature/iso setting it's shutter speeds will be noticeable longer..

Still, I like the OLY's, and have no issues with 4/3 sensors, they produce the goods, and having lower ISO sensitivity does mean they will always meter plenty of light, leading to less noise, even if you could achieve the same thing by just lowering the ISO on another brand of camera and still achieve the same metering..
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that this is correct Demon, although I admit I'm also pretty fuzzy on it.

Have a read of this article - http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/09/why-iso-isnt-iso.html

It took me about 3 goes to begin to get my head around it and I'm still not quite there.

Then read this - http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/10/raw-is-not-raw.html
 
Last edited:
Phate said:
Just to add in, been playing around with the low-light focusing on this E-PL5 and its bang on, every time! - if you need anymore convincing :p
Click to expand...

I just can't seem to make an actual decision just yet.

I was pretty sold on the E-PL5, but the free lens offer on the X-A1 is just a bit hard to pass up. Between the kit lens and the telephoto from the offer it would cover a lot of situations that I can see wanting to use the camera for. Plus the extra sensor size is always nice.

Spoilt for choice! :D
 
DanF said:
I'd say an EVF is a really useful thing to have on a CSC, rear screens usually don't work very well in bright sunlight ;)
Click to expand...

Agreed, more for the effect on camera stability and battery life though rather than anything else. CSC bodies will supersede SLR's when they all have EVF's, comparable focusing performance, and battery life. Alongside the other features like external mic etc.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom