Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] OT: Recent debate on crop v FF

Subject: Re: [OM] OT: Recent debate on crop v FF
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 12:08:07 -0800
On 1/17/2015 9:38 AM, Philippe wrote:
During the course of one of our famous-the-world-over LUG-debates on APS-C and 
FF ;-) I had promised to post comparison shots of fuji and nikon files using 
the same settings.

I found time to rekindle my D700 today (16 months on the shelf, so says LR) and 
shot 3 pairs of snaps at high ISO (1600 for I wanted RAW, and it is the ISO 
limit of both bodies in RAW I think)

What? That can't be right.

and equivalent focal length and aperture, respectively 35 & 50mm, both open at 
1.4.

I can't see where these shed much light on the subject. The D700 is 5.5 years older than the X-T1, and a whole lot has happened with sensor system technology over that time. So you are not just comparing FF to APS-C, but old vs. new tech. (I also have an old, 12 MP FF camera, Canon 5D, but the new stuff whups it on detail.)

I'm not sure why more people don't use the wonderful comparison facilities in the dpreview tests. A quick look there immediately shows a lot about this question. <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/X-T1_E-M1_D700/FOCN.jpg>

As it comes out of the converter, the X-T1 shows a little less detail than a current Canon APS-C model, and quite a bit less than a current FF Nikon. Since I'm a µ4/3 shooter, I also included the E-M1. Interestingly, in this comparison gadget, the Fuji looks noiseless, but soft, while the Oly looks a little noisy, but sharper.

So I downloaded the Raw files, ran 'em through ACR*, stacked 'em and did some processing and comparing. <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/X-T1_E-M1_D700/FON.htm>

If, and I don't think that's a big if, the dpreview shots are correctly focused, the X-T1 is distinctly soft, right out of the camera. I've done this sort of comparisons before, with other cameras, and they've turned out to be accurate. They don't seem to say any more, but they used to use the best prime lenses available for each camera, stopped down short of diffraction. On a flat target, that should nail it.

I know this started out as FF vs. APS-C, but that ship has, for now, sailed. The D750 resolves a great deal more fine detail than the smaller sensor cameras - no contest.

I find the APS-C vs. 4/3 sensor size comparison more interesting. Because of the format difference, 16 MP of 4/3 gives a slightly larger image than APS-C, which is a slight visual advantage. With these two particular cameras and lenses, @ ISO 1600, and with some effort by me in PS, it appears they are very close, but at 100%, after processing, the Oly has a slight, but definite, edge in detail resolution and no more noise.

For all but very large, perfectly executed display sizes, there's no practical difference. From a processing standpoint, I find the Oly files easier to get right.

Thanks for the post. I've been wondering about all the Fuji X love here, what with the larger sensor, but it appears I needn't, other than ergonomics and camera esthetics. What will happen if the rumored E-M5II really does have 40 MP resolution? Oh my! :-)

Comparative Moose

* The Fuji RAF files worked just fine in ACR.

--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz