Author Topic: Same picture with ASP-C DSLR Sensor and M4/3 Sensor. What will be different IQ? (Read 6796 times)

mid_gen · « **Reply #50 on:** July 11, 2011, 05:34:33 PM »

Quote from: lisandra on July 10, 2011, 06:35:24 PM

saying ISO 1600 looks the same as ISO 12k is the boldest thing ever said, and I want to see it.

I'm a busy man! Not had time to do some test shots yet. Might be able to tonight.

What's the point of the 'test' ? It's not a test, it's just a comparison of how much better the X100 sensor is compared to the G1. It's hardly a surprise result. Older tech, smaller sensor.

If I get a chance between calls later I'll do ISO 100 v 100, and 6400 vs 1600. Tbh I don't normally use 12800 as I shoot RAW and 12800 is just pushed 6400. I'll do 12800 JPEG but you're mostly going to be seeing the JPEG engine rather than the sensor performance.

lisandra · « **Reply #51 on:** July 12, 2011, 05:34:32 PM »

no worries, saw it on Dpreview. Its good. Theres a big discussion going on because on how fuji does high ISO and how the camera applies a noticeable amount of noise reduction to RAW files. Personally I dont mind much if detail is not lost.

mid_gen · « **Reply #52 on:** July 12, 2011, 08:26:46 PM »

Couple more comparisons. ISO 200, tried to expose roughly the same, then I've pulled the shadows up to really test the dynamic range available.

G1

X100

I'd never noticed before how badly the 20mm flares, bit crap really now I notice it!

Couple of 100% crops from the shadow areas I pulled out, you can really see how much more shadow detail the sensor captures.

G1

X100

voyager · « **Reply #53 on:** July 12, 2011, 08:54:17 PM »

Honestly I think the G1 looks better here. Definitely preserves more detail.

mid_gen · « **Reply #54 on:** July 12, 2011, 10:28:43 PM »

You're telling me the G1 has pulled more detail out of the shadows in that image?

voyager · « **Reply #55 on:** July 12, 2011, 10:31:07 PM »

Well, neither camera really did that great of a job, but if you judge by which crop looks better then I would go with the G1 because of the film like grain. The x100 photo just looks kind of smudged to me.

mid_gen · « **Reply #56 on:** July 12, 2011, 10:40:31 PM »

Film grain? You mean noise? You're telling me the G1 is better because it's noisier? Guess all these camera manufacturers have the wrong idea!

This is what happens when you do some fairly standard PP.

G1

X100

Bearing in mind this is at ISO200. When I'm out shooting on the streets at ISO1600 on the G1, and try to pull some detail out of the shadows (which is a lot of time, Hong Kong is a city of dark streets and bright lights), and there's just nothing there. The X100 not only has much less noise at high ISO, but the range is there so you have much more room to play with your RAW files.

adash · « **Reply #57 on:** July 12, 2011, 10:44:42 PM »

Yeah, that looks much like film grain. Quite noisier than X100 however, just a tiny bit more detailed.
Not as sharp when noise is removed however

voyager · « **Reply #58 on:** July 12, 2011, 10:50:17 PM »

I'm not saying it's better, it just looks better to me, and yeah I meant the noise. I know the G1 has more, but it preserves a lot more detail.

mid_gen · « **Reply #59 on:** July 12, 2011, 11:07:38 PM »

I can do the 12800 v 1600 later, obviously a bit bright at the moment.

This is a typical shot I'll take....the G1 is really being pushed to it's limits, it looks awful at anything above this web resolution. The X100 is way ahead in this kind of scenario, as you'd expect!

If I want film grain, I'll take some EM and some HP5+ out, but I don't

voyager · « **Reply #60 on:** July 12, 2011, 11:10:54 PM »

I don't know what to tell you. Get the x100 because the G1 sucks?

asterinex · « **Reply #61 on:** July 12, 2011, 11:44:29 PM »

I think the G1 delivers a poor performance in case of noise. I saw other very dissapointing exemples of the G1 on this site.
The PENS are much better in this area.

adash · « **Reply #62 on:** July 13, 2011, 12:31:29 AM »

Quote

The PENS are much better in this area.

Unfortunately they're not. At least the first generation (E-P1/E-P2).

lisandra · « **Reply #63 on:** July 13, 2011, 12:36:31 AM »

like ive said a gazillion times, its a preference thing. Some people (and sites) concentrate only on what noise they can see. They shoot something at ISO 1600 or whatever and see no noise and OH MY! THIS SENSOR IS AMAZING! regardless if fine detail has been smudged to hell or not. The fuji is a fine camera, it really is, but noise reduction applied to RAW files straight out the camera makes me too nervous, although I admit fuji did a fairly good job.
The G1 was the first panny m4/3 camera ever, there have been 4 more sensor generations after that, so all in all it doesnt do that bad against the fuji. Good buy mid gen, now if only you could change that lens...

tamoio · « **Reply #64 on:** July 16, 2011, 02:01:07 PM »

Beating a dead horse.

Yeah, I sound like a broken record. . .I just don't get this high ISO stuff. I shoot outdoors 99% of the time and even at dawn and at the end of the day I have plenty of light when using my lenses in their sweet spot (usually 1 or 2 stops down from wide open).

Time-lapse and video stuff I am struggling all day long to get enough ND in front of the lens to get anything at all at ISO 200.

So you want to shoot indoors hand-held with available light? uh. . .ok
Outdoors at night hand-held with fast shutter speeds? uh. . .ok
You want to freeze birds-in-flight in daylight hand-held? uh. . .ok

It seems like the whole point of this exercise technically is giving photojournalists the ability to shoot professional sports in the dark. So yeah if your bread and butter is standing out on the 50 yard line with the 30 or 40 other credentialed photogs and bursting through your buffer limit every 3rd down I guess clean ISO 12800 is a big step forward. Those of us who aren't vampires got along fine for decades at ISO 64.

voyager · « **Reply #65 on:** July 16, 2011, 02:08:57 PM »

Can anyone remember how we survived when digital cameras only went up to ISO 1600?

Em5 Pete · « **Reply #66 on:** July 16, 2011, 02:19:26 PM »

I survived with film up to 800 when I way a wee lad in the 70's, I only used ISO 64 and 125 B&W

Em5 Pete · « **Reply #67 on:** July 16, 2011, 02:20:23 PM »

My 1st Digital (Fuji 2800 2mp) did ISO 400 or 800 I think tops

lisandra · « **Reply #68 on:** August 04, 2011, 12:27:01 AM »

its actually hard to find an iso 102400 photo, thats how much its been used. But get on a forum and theyll brag about it till you die

rogerml · « **Reply #69 on:** August 04, 2011, 01:13:43 AM »

I clearly remember loading ISO 25 Kodacrome into my Canonet QL17.

Em5 Pete · « **Reply #70 on:** August 04, 2011, 06:36:14 AM »

My fav was Panatonic X (ISO 60)

But I shoot ISO 400 film now so I can shoot in most any light... I can underexpose by 1.5 stops on the same roll and still get great results... (Rodinal Stand 1Hr -- 5ml to 500ml per roll)

But, about bragging rights.. My G3 has a very useable 6400 ISO! Not perfect, but plenty of detail w/o smearing.. those indoor shots at the 1836 theme park were ISO 640-4000. I am sure Panasonic could have made up to 128,000 available... but, stopping at a very nice looking ISO 6400 was a wise choice, because it is usable, not just an unreasonably high ISO for marketing.

lisandra · « **Reply #71 on:** August 04, 2011, 12:19:26 PM »

Quote

My G3 has a very useable 6400 ISO!

Ive seen it people!! dont make me post the spoons again...

Author Topic: Same picture with ASP-C DSLR Sensor and M4/3 Sensor. What will be different IQ? (Read 6796 times)

Related Topics

Recent Topics

Recent Gallery