Benjamin Marks
Veteran
Is there a consensus on which m 4/3 camera has the highest RAW IQ? I have a NEX and OLy E-P2 and would give the NEX the edge, but only incrementally. I generally use the Oly more because I prefer the ergonomics. Any GH2 users out there? NOT trolling for a flame war, just interested in whether opinion has consolidated around a model as the image-quality leader.
Ben
Ben
douglasf13
Well-known
I would imagine that DxO Mark is a good place to start. http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Camera-Sensor/Compare
gavinlg
Veteran
I would say the Nex or the x100 would be the IQ leaders in terms of raw sensor performance, but the nex has crappy lenses as a system and the x100 is fixed lens.
For what it's worth the GH2 and G3 now have better JPEG noise performance than the nikon 5100 and canon Rebels.
For what it's worth the GH2 and G3 now have better JPEG noise performance than the nikon 5100 and canon Rebels.
douglasf13
Well-known
Agreed. The current lenses of m4/3 and Samsung NX look quite a bit better than NEX, and I would definitely go with one of those if native lenses are a must for you. Most of us in the NEX forum use the 16mm prime alongside various manual lenses, and that's where the NEX excels, IMO.
kdemas
Enjoy Life.
I believe the GH2 is the leader of the pack right now in m4/3. G3 will share the sensor, not sure it will have the processing power.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
I doubt anyone can consistently pick out specific m4/3rd model based on viewing the images.
And I'm talking about real life images, not lens charts or brick walls.
So there will only be subjective opinions out there, a long way from a consensus
And I'm talking about real life images, not lens charts or brick walls.
So there will only be subjective opinions out there, a long way from a consensus
kdemas
Enjoy Life.
Probably true in most cases. That GH2 sensor, however, not only breaks out of the 12MP limit but it's supposed to be quite a bit better in low light shooting. Not D700/D3S good, but good.
I doubt anyone can consistently pick out specific m4/3rd model based on viewing the images.
And I'm talking about real life images, not lens charts or brick walls.
So there will only be subjective opinions out there, a long way from a consensus
ampguy
Veteran
If you go to this page:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond5100/page21.asp
and compare the D5100 and GH2 at 12,800, JPG's. I'd be very interested if anyone found the GH2 image of the penny better than the D5100.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond5100/page21.asp
and compare the D5100 and GH2 at 12,800, JPG's. I'd be very interested if anyone found the GH2 image of the penny better than the D5100.
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
rdeleskie
Well-known
I checked out the dpreview link. They both look pretty unusable to me at 12,800: I'd be hard pressed to pick a winner (I'm just looking at the RAW images here). Flipping through the various ISOs I was surprised at how closely the GH2 tracked the D5100 for noise, given that the D5100 has the same sensor as the D7000. The patterning on the D5100 was better at the higher ISOs, while the GH2 looked sharper overall. This is based on a quick look, and might not hold up to more sustained pixel peeping (really, the D5100 should be quite a bit better, which I imagine a closer look would reveal).
Back to the OP's question: I had the EPL1/2 and now have a GH2. I preferred the jpegs out of the Olympus cameras (the colours particularly), but the RAW image from the GH2 is excellent. From the reviews I've read, the GH2 seems to get the nod for producing the highest quality RAW files. The G3 is also excellent, apparently. Worth noting that the G3 does not use the same sensor as the GH2, which is optimized for HD video.
Back to the OP's question: I had the EPL1/2 and now have a GH2. I preferred the jpegs out of the Olympus cameras (the colours particularly), but the RAW image from the GH2 is excellent. From the reviews I've read, the GH2 seems to get the nod for producing the highest quality RAW files. The G3 is also excellent, apparently. Worth noting that the G3 does not use the same sensor as the GH2, which is optimized for HD video.
ampguy
Veteran
You're right Ray, that is some other kind of coin there! I am very impressed with the GH2, definitely the best specs of a m4/3 that I've seen so far, and you're right, high ISO tracks pretty close to the D5100 to 1600.
On dxomark though, look at the other properties, dynamic range, color sensitivity, tonal range, SNR @ 18% gray. Becomes pretty clear that the D5100 has the edge, and still costs a couple hundred less than the GH2. If the GH2 matched the D5100, in IQ and price, I'd seriously consider it, and am anxious to see what can come from Olympus in the m4/3 area, as I like vendors who can output high IQ JPGs, something Panasonic struggles with, IMHO.
On dxomark though, look at the other properties, dynamic range, color sensitivity, tonal range, SNR @ 18% gray. Becomes pretty clear that the D5100 has the edge, and still costs a couple hundred less than the GH2. If the GH2 matched the D5100, in IQ and price, I'd seriously consider it, and am anxious to see what can come from Olympus in the m4/3 area, as I like vendors who can output high IQ JPGs, something Panasonic struggles with, IMHO.
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
Those are impressive RAW file comparisons with the 5100.
Me too. I'm interested in seeing the next wave of MFT cameras from both manufacturers, especially with regard to viewfinders. I think I'm done with LCD picture taking--except for when I use my phone.
/