Mikehit said:
Aglet said:
Y'all asked for it.
Here's an original image; scaled from a full rez Olympus EM1 mk2 OOC jpg at base iso (200) with no tweak and default sharpening. (a tad too high... slight halo visible)
I took a 100% crop from the right area and did the same thing I did to samples from Sporgon and Talys; de-sat, crank contrast and exposure amp to make the noise structure visible.
Yup, kinda noisey too.
But very film-grain-like with no significant patterning visible and no worse than Canon's FF with off-sensor ADC.
I even prefer this noise structure to the Canon's and it would clean up, if needed, quite nicely in DXO-pro with one click.
I stand by my claim.
EM1v2 IQ is comparable to previous generation of Canon FF in IQ.
Thankyou. So it seems no superiority but equivalence which is somewhat different to you original statements - and to be honest to be expected at pixel level nowadays for all manufacturers.
The difference is, of course, if you view the MFT and FF images at the same viewing size the MFT is being being magnified twice as much and the MFT noise will become more apparent
The latest MFT will fall behind in overall IQ as the iso goes up but because of the noise structure I would push it as high as 3200 or 6400 iso with good NR vs a 5d2/3 or 6d2/3.
Where I think this MFT wins is in all the cool extras it includes at the same or lower price point.
That's why it's quickly become my favorite camera. It makes it easy to get an image and it's good enough to go fairly big, if needed.
As for the MFT noise being more apparent than FF at the same viewing size.
The short version is yes, it should be so.. but there are various caveats that may tend to equalize things a little.
In this exercise, I did not accentuate the noise from each of these 3 samples in exactly the same way so they are not directly comparable, unfortunately.. This was just meant to examine the
structure of the noise of each system.
To do a proper comparison an identically exposed image would need to be shot by each system, of the same patch of sky at the same time, etc... so we have the same relative RGB blend, and processed from respective raw files.
The MFT file
should have more visible noise as it's pixels are more prone to shot noise and random effects since they're about 1/4 the area of the FF pixels and therefore collecting fewer photons given the same shutter speed and aperture on the same scene.
There's even more interfering with that too.. because each camera's ISO is not the same either.
That's why I prefer to look at the full SNR chart on DxOmarks' website as they correct for things like actual ISO.
That one chart tells me a LOT.