obviously, but my point is that the m43 zoom lenses are much smaller than the nex zoom lenses due to the smaller lens diameter.
Which CSC camera, Nex 5N or GX1?
- Thread starter Ev0
- Start date
obviously, but my point is that the m43 zoom lenses are much smaller than the nex zoom lenses due to the smaller lens diameter.
I have played with the GF1 and the NEX 5n in a camera shop.
I must say the 5n is really good bit kit.
The fact there is minimum lag puts it into the realm of DSLR world !
The fact there is limited glass is to be expected.ad the range is still.only a few years old.
As I have invested in a canon DSLR buying the whole 5n range of kit would very expensive.
However if I had not then the 5n would be my choice.
I am hoping canon bring a 4/3 system with a lens adapter so I could use my DSLR glass,...that would be cool !
I must say the 5n is really good bit kit.
The fact there is minimum lag puts it into the realm of DSLR world !
The fact there is limited glass is to be expected.ad the range is still.only a few years old.
As I have invested in a canon DSLR buying the whole 5n range of kit would very expensive.
However if I had not then the 5n would be my choice.
I am hoping canon bring a 4/3 system with a lens adapter so I could use my DSLR glass,...that would be cool !
From what ive seen the m43 are superior at high iso, but the nikon sensor noise levels relative to its size is very impressive. If nikon made a m43 size sensor I'm almost certain it would be better than the current m43 sensors at high iso (given the noise relative to sensor size of the n1/j1).
Nikon sensor is much better?
I'd disagree. I dont see a dyanamic range advantage with the nikon at all.
Lets compare the old sensor in the E-p3, so old its the same sensor found in the GF1!
look at this comparison -
V1 - http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/NIKONV1/FULLRES/V1hHOUSE.HTM
Ep 3 - http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/EP3/FULLRES/EP3hHOUSE.HTM
The e-p3 shows much more detail and sharpness than the v1. The v1 looks very smeary by comparison, and the corners/edges on the v1 are worse by comparison.
now for high iso -
v1 - http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/NIKONV1/FULLRES/V1hSLI1600NR1D.HTM
e-p3 - http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/EP3/FULLRES/EP3hSLI01600NR2D.HTM
The e-p3 is clearly better. Just look at the text on the bottles, no contest. and again the corners on the v1 are much worse.
So if this m43 sensor might be old, but to refer to it as 'aging' when its superior to the nikon, is a bit silly. Not to mention this sensor is years old and the newer sensors found in the gh2, g3, gx1 etc are all better than the sensor seen in this comparison.
If we were giving awards for sensor size relative to noise levels the V1/J1 would be great, but we arent. The m43 are better at high iso.
One thing i do love about the nikon csc's though, is the screen and the build quality. The pics it produces are great too, but in this very clinical side by side test, the m43 seems slightly better to the pixel peepers.
Last edited:
Lets have look at the data:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Ca.../Olympus/(appareil3)/763|0/(brand3)/Panasonic
Look, wow, Nikon V1 obtains a higher overall score than the Olympus PEN EP3 or Panasonic Lumix DMC GF3 due to better colour depth and increased dynamic range (nearly 1 stop, i.e The Nikon V1 has around twice the DR). The M43s offer slightly better high ISO performance, but to really understand noise you will need to print some photos off and look at the results. Nikon removes chroma noise and leaves a fair amount of luminance noise which adds apparent detail to images but causes artificial noise test to return higher sigma values.
There is certainly no significant image gain in a m43 over a Nikon V1 camera, and even with image noise the m43 cameras do not offer any tangible advantage that would change the way you can photograph a badly lit scene. You would have to go with a Sony NEx5/7 to get enough increase in noise performance to make a difference.
On the flip side 1 extra stop DR and the extras colour depth could make a large difference for landscape photographers etc.
The only thing going for m43 cameras at the moment is the native lens choice, which is quite well rounded now and a big reason to choose an m43 camera ATM. The question is, in 5 years time how will Nikon's 1 and Sony's Nex offerings look like.
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Ca.../Olympus/(appareil3)/763|0/(brand3)/Panasonic
Look, wow, Nikon V1 obtains a higher overall score than the Olympus PEN EP3 or Panasonic Lumix DMC GF3 due to better colour depth and increased dynamic range (nearly 1 stop, i.e The Nikon V1 has around twice the DR). The M43s offer slightly better high ISO performance, but to really understand noise you will need to print some photos off and look at the results. Nikon removes chroma noise and leaves a fair amount of luminance noise which adds apparent detail to images but causes artificial noise test to return higher sigma values.
There is certainly no significant image gain in a m43 over a Nikon V1 camera, and even with image noise the m43 cameras do not offer any tangible advantage that would change the way you can photograph a badly lit scene. You would have to go with a Sony NEx5/7 to get enough increase in noise performance to make a difference.
On the flip side 1 extra stop DR and the extras colour depth could make a large difference for landscape photographers etc.
The only thing going for m43 cameras at the moment is the native lens choice, which is quite well rounded now and a big reason to choose an m43 camera ATM. The question is, in 5 years time how will Nikon's 1 and Sony's Nex offerings look like.
wow? so you point out how the nikon is 5% better in overall score. Well if we are going on these scientific numbers...lets compare. The nikon is..
2.4% better color depth.
and 9% better dynamic range.
then you say m43 offers slightly better high iso...
the e-p3 is 54% better high iso!
You cant rave about color depth and dynamic range and then gloss (punned) over the massive difference in high iso.
Except much more shaprness, better high iso and shallower depth of field, continue...
obviously, and much better low light performance would make a difference to low/natural light shooters.
As well as better high iso, shallower DOF and sharper images. Yeh the 'only' think m43 has...
Dont forget, this is comparing the old sensor.
Now for a fair comparison lets look at the newer g3 sensor
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/745|0/(brand)/Nikon/(appareil2)/724|0/(brand2)/Olympus/(appareil3)/701|0/(brand3)/Panasonic
Ouch.
nikon has a 1.4% color difference advantage, a 3.7% dynamic range advantage. and a massive 92% high iso disadvantage.
So yeah...overall the modern m43 sensors are much better. Plus the images will be sharper due to sharper lenses. And a wider lens selection.
I think you have the wrong end of the stick. There is no real difference in IQ between these cameras to make a user choose one over the other, even if there is measurable difference.
You cannot also apply your linear % calculations to this non linear data. If the Nikon 1 has 1 stop more DR then that equates to 100% higher DR (1 stop equals twice the absolute value equals 100% increase). You cannot compare the noise values so easily. For example, if you look at the actual data for the Signal to noise ratio you see at the High ISOs you were concerned with the Nikon V1 actually produces a higher SNR, producing a lower noise image than the m43 counter parts. It is the lower end that the Nikon V1 does worse than the m43 camera providing lower SNRs. However, the Nikon V1 has a native ISO 100 mode, when this is used it gives a higher SNR than the m43 camera at their base sensitivity. therefore, for landscape work etc. on a tripod, the Nikon V1 gives measurably less noise, at high ISOs for sports or indoors the Nikon v1 also gives measurably lower noise, in intermediate ISOs then the m43s are better.
And these results just looking at the standard deviation of pixel values from 18% grey, which I I said previously the Nikon does not do well at because they purposely leave luminance noise (the sometimes attractive grainy kind) to preserve detail and remove chrominance noise (which is the ugly kind).
the point I made is that if you took the same photo, say a portrait in a dark church where you had a to boost the ISO, and you printed the photos reasonably large, then you wont notice a difference between the Nikon 1 and most of the M43 cameras. There simply is not significant enough differences. IF the noise on the Nikon V1 is too high then it will be much the same on a M43 camera, and really you will need to move to a FF camera to guarantee getting 2-3 more stops.
As for DoF, it is again an irrelevant comparison. There is not a large difference between sensor sizes to warrant a big difference and if shallow DoF was really important than neither camera is capable. You would be looking at at least a DX sized sensor camera and probably just go full frame.
This is the general problem with the M43 concept. it sits right in the middle between two domains and aims to offer the advantages of both but really kind of gives you the disadvantages of both. This is kind of the problem for most of the mirror-less system cameras though. However, the lens choice is second to none in the field, which is big selling point.
You neither have a full DSLR or a shirt pocket camera.
You cannot also apply your linear % calculations to this non linear data. If the Nikon 1 has 1 stop more DR then that equates to 100% higher DR (1 stop equals twice the absolute value equals 100% increase). You cannot compare the noise values so easily. For example, if you look at the actual data for the Signal to noise ratio you see at the High ISOs you were concerned with the Nikon V1 actually produces a higher SNR, producing a lower noise image than the m43 counter parts. It is the lower end that the Nikon V1 does worse than the m43 camera providing lower SNRs. However, the Nikon V1 has a native ISO 100 mode, when this is used it gives a higher SNR than the m43 camera at their base sensitivity. therefore, for landscape work etc. on a tripod, the Nikon V1 gives measurably less noise, at high ISOs for sports or indoors the Nikon v1 also gives measurably lower noise, in intermediate ISOs then the m43s are better.
And these results just looking at the standard deviation of pixel values from 18% grey, which I I said previously the Nikon does not do well at because they purposely leave luminance noise (the sometimes attractive grainy kind) to preserve detail and remove chrominance noise (which is the ugly kind).
the point I made is that if you took the same photo, say a portrait in a dark church where you had a to boost the ISO, and you printed the photos reasonably large, then you wont notice a difference between the Nikon 1 and most of the M43 cameras. There simply is not significant enough differences. IF the noise on the Nikon V1 is too high then it will be much the same on a M43 camera, and really you will need to move to a FF camera to guarantee getting 2-3 more stops.
As for DoF, it is again an irrelevant comparison. There is not a large difference between sensor sizes to warrant a big difference and if shallow DoF was really important than neither camera is capable. You would be looking at at least a DX sized sensor camera and probably just go full frame.
This is the general problem with the M43 concept. it sits right in the middle between two domains and aims to offer the advantages of both but really kind of gives you the disadvantages of both. This is kind of the problem for most of the mirror-less system cameras though. However, the lens choice is second to none in the field, which is big selling point.
You neither have a full DSLR or a shirt pocket camera.
I agree but they wouldn't be in each group stopped visiting the other forums and slagging off the cameras.
I have a Nex and no interest in a M 4/3 however I also have no interest in going in to their forums or running down people that use those camera's.
Seems lots of people aren't like that and feel angry if people don't use their camera or agree with their points. It's almost like they take a personal afront to it
I'm really not brand loyal (in fact currently I'm pining after both the olmypus E-pl2 and a Nex 5n). I think me and D.P. just a got a bit geeky.
Yeh D.P., I can see that point totally. The I.Q differences aren't really major enough to have a big impact on decision. In day to day shooting I'm sure the sterile, pixel peeping IQ differences would vanish. Its more down to overall system preference. I got the impression you were saying the nikons were vastly superior, which is why i got confused. I do love the j1/v1 build quality (trust nikon to make it like a tank), video mode is ace too. It also actually has one of the nicest menus ive seen on a camera too, very smooth and easy to use.
absolutely, dpreview is a nightmare, I gave up posting there a long time ago. Maybe its the gear specific forums that encourage that kind of behavior.
Yeh D.P., I can see that point totally. The I.Q differences aren't really major enough to have a big impact on decision. In day to day shooting I'm sure the sterile, pixel peeping IQ differences would vanish. Its more down to overall system preference. I got the impression you were saying the nikons were vastly superior, which is why i got confused. I do love the j1/v1 build quality (trust nikon to make it like a tank), video mode is ace too. It also actually has one of the nicest menus ive seen on a camera too, very smooth and easy to use.
absolutely, dpreview is a nightmare, I gave up posting there a long time ago. Maybe its the gear specific forums that encourage that kind of behavior.
LOL well said. Its like one painter telling another painter his brushes are crap, bit weird really.
Arrived today, first impressions are it seems as good as the Nex I borrowed but I prefer this as a package.
The X lens seems good as well, folds down nicely and will be a great travel companion.
Need to try it out this weekend with some action shots, then I'll know if I'm keeping it or not.
If I am then the 20mm will be ordered next week
The X lens seems good as well, folds down nicely and will be a great travel companion.
Need to try it out this weekend with some action shots, then I'll know if I'm keeping it or not.
If I am then the 20mm will be ordered next week
Had my first proper go with it today at a hockey training session and had mixed feelings.
Shutter speed was fine, no issues there, but was a little disappointed with the results and focus speed.
However it's clear from the shots that it's from the appalling lighting in the sports hall, luckily where league games are played has a lot of natural light coming in from the roof.
Had to manually adjust the white balance to an extreme as standard everything was very yellow.
The X series lens is decent but I did find it a little frustrating having to 'wait' for it when trying to zoom in and out quickly as the action played out.
But this was something we already thought might be the case and as the standard 14/42 can be had pretty cheaply not too much of a worry.
I did have thought this morning after the session of returning it and grabbing a Nex-5N, but after looking at the pics on the laptop I think I'll be keeping it and getting the 20mm lens next week.
Shutter speed was fine, no issues there, but was a little disappointed with the results and focus speed.
However it's clear from the shots that it's from the appalling lighting in the sports hall, luckily where league games are played has a lot of natural light coming in from the roof.
Had to manually adjust the white balance to an extreme as standard everything was very yellow.
The X series lens is decent but I did find it a little frustrating having to 'wait' for it when trying to zoom in and out quickly as the action played out.
But this was something we already thought might be the case and as the standard 14/42 can be had pretty cheaply not too much of a worry.
I did have thought this morning after the session of returning it and grabbing a Nex-5N, but after looking at the pics on the laptop I think I'll be keeping it and getting the 20mm lens next week.