Andrewteee
All-Pro
Is anyone willing to share a full res Xtrans RAW file with me? I'd like to try one in Iridient Developer.
I think this 10% vs 50% is about right...
I'm not sure about this at all. The difference between m43 and APS has been getting smaller, not larger. And they're really not that different in terms of size except for the aspect ratio, so I don't see any reason why sensor development should stall in m43 and continue to improve in APS. For sure, there's a pretty notable gap between APS and full frame, but a much much smaller gap between m43 and APS. And I'd expect that to continue to be the case. I agree that m43 probably won't always have the performance advantage it has today, but it'll always have the advantage of smaller glass and a more compact overall system with a relatively minor IQ penalty.I think, at least hypothetically, FX has a lot more room to improve whereas M43 is pretty much maxing out what is possible with its sensors. After a certain point, the IQ delta may widen to a more dramatic difference. And, at that point, AF and lens selection for the Fujis may be much better.
I'm not sure about this at all. The difference between m43 and APS has been getting smaller, not larger. And they're really not that different in terms of size except for the aspect ratio, so I don't see any reason why sensor development should stall in m43 and continue to improve in APS. For sure, there's a pretty notable gap between APS and full frame, but a much much smaller gap between m43 and APS. And I'd expect that to continue to be the case. I agree that m43 probably won't always have the performance advantage it has today, but it'll always have the advantage of smaller glass and a more compact overall system with a relatively minor IQ penalty.
-Ray
I'm probably overstating my case, and my case is really only hypothetical, based upon the sensor size. Frankly, the introduction of the Sony A7 cameras makes me wonder if Fujifilm or others' APS-C platforms will be made comparatively archaic in a relatively short number of years from now.
I think my problem is being overly-attached to sensor size...the way people used to fetishize megapixel resolution. At some point I should stop being surprised that M43 can be so good. I'd agree that the IQ in most circumstances is only marginally different. APS-C only has a significant advantage with high ISO.
Provided the next generation of Fuji bodies improves on performance (AF speed and accuracy, file write time, EVF refresh rate) and a next generation higher resolution X - trans sensor will be available, I`d rather bet my money on the excellent Fuji prime lenses.
I was just going through photos that I took with the XPro1 when it first came out. And photos with the XE1 when it first came out. Good numbers of inaccurate AF locks. Here's to hoping that Fuji steals Oly/Pany's AF technology soon!
yup, x100 + epl5 = happiness thru polygamy!
So at any rate, the short term debate is whether to cut my losses with M43. I just got an EPL5 and the VF4 to replace my Panasonic kit; I really like M43 and wanted to give it a fair chance before making a decision on the format, and so I wanted to spend some time with more advanced gear. I got really good deals - once I sell the kit lens I think I'll end up spending $500 total for a new body under warranty and new VF4 out of warranty. So that, the 20mm and maybe someday the Oly 45mm plus adapted Rokkor lenses = pretty good kit to go with the Ricoh.
I don't know whether it's just extremely high quality of the images out of the GR, but I see significant differences in the image quality. Here's some pictures, shot RAW, edited in LR, exported as JPEG. They have the same ISO and FStop but different focal lengths. Basic PP with a bit more sharpening then I would normally use (around 65) and a little noise reduction with the Oly, no noise reduction for the Ricoh.
{EDIT - Sorry, I forgot the key fact that the first of each pair is a cropped image, roughly 100%, though I wasn't being super precise. The second image in each pair is a further crop of the same image. I don't know the ratio, but it was only a small piece of the original. I'd guess about 1/8th of the length. }
OLympus EPL5 with Panasonic 20mm:
View attachment 8355
View attachment 8357
And these are the RICOH:
View attachment 8356
View attachment 8358
So you could say the quality is pretty close, but to me the difference is pretty substantial and it makes me wonder if I should ditch M43. So I'm wondering, do you think these photos are a good representation of the difference between the two formats? Because I did a bunch of different comparisons and the Ricoh always came out ahead of my M43, which has near top IQ with one of the sharper prime lenses.
And here's a bonus photo, showing some of the ability of M43. It's an MD Rokkor 135mm f3.5 on the EPL5.
View attachment 8354
I lose sleep over the same question all the time. I've gone back and forth twice already!! And possibly in the process of a third time ...
20% better IQ vs. 20% better AF. That's pretty much how I see the eternal struggle within me of Fuji v. m4/3.
Is anyone willing to share a full res Xtrans RAW file with me? I'd like to try one in Iridient Developer.
Firstly, thanks for going to the trouble of posting some example images. I would however agree with some of the other comments about the E-PL5 image showing signs of motion blur. As such I don't think that can be considered representative of that particular combination of camera and lens nor the entire Micro 4/3 system. I don't doubt that the GR should show slightly higher pixel level detail than an E-PL5 since it doesn't have an AA filter, but it shouldn't be this noticeable.
...
Now the reason that I mentioned these as a standard for minimum sharpness is that these weren't taken with the AA filter-less E-M1 and high-end prime lenses, but a GH1 (released 2009) and the 14-140mm 10x superzoom lens at various focal lengths, and some of them were even taken from a moving boat. Having said that, some of these I wouldn't want any sharper because they are already bordering on displaying aliasing on the high contrast edges. I'd be disappointed if I couldn't get an image from a Micro 4/3 camera near-as-dammit to match the pixel-level sharpness of an APS-C sensor camera of the same resolution. I've got a thousand of these from a variety of different cameras but that would get boring very quickly so I'll stop here.
My purposes are similar to the OPs, and after a quick spin with XE-1 and X100S, I sold them both. My MFT cameras have never left me.
That's the one constant for me as well. I keep trying out different systems and pondering whether or not to leave m4/3. I've come close before. But at the end of the day, m4/3 is still here.