A900 vs E3 vs M8 (which is which!)

[jonoslack]

HI There
this shot shows the area of the image, with the crop area:

The M8 was taken using the Summicron 35mm asph at f6.5, the A900 with the Zeiss 24-70 at 50mm and f8 and the E3 with the Zuiko 12-60 at 26mm and f5. I used the different apertures to make the depth of field closer to each other.

I made sure that the vertical field of view was the same for each shot (as the Olympus has a different aspect ratio).

Each shot was processed in Aperture with no added sharpening (only the exposure was equalised), and cropped down to the same area of the frame. It was then saved as 900 pixels. All were shot within a minute or so of each other using daylight white balance.

Of course, if one could be bothered it would also be interesting to organise it so that the area covered the same number of pixels (I thought about it, but it made my brain hurt!).

anyway, here are

The exif is still there, so you can cheat if it turns you on

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Whichever is the middle one than that one maybe the best in the details and the DR looks very good. The bottom one looks muddy and the top one the saturation looks higher. I just checked the middle one EXIF after i made these comments. Not entirely surprised

Also the middle one the tonal range and color seem more natural. This is a eye opener

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Also folks download all three to your desktop . Little easier to see the differences

 

[jonoslack]

Also the middle one the tonal range and color seem more natural. This is a eye opener

:ROTFL::ROTFL:
Do I feel a purchase coming on!

Incidentally, I printed them all out as 10X8, without carefully checking which is which, and it's really extremely hard to tell one from the other.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Certainly tempting. LOL

 

[Joan]

I guessed right, do I win a prize?! :ROTFL:

#2 seems like the winner in this comparison, but I do like the cooler reds in #1, they make a nice contrast to the warm yellows and greens.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Joan do you have PS on your system

 

[Quentin_Bargate]

I got the A900 right, but I thought 3 was the Leica, not that there is much to choose between 1 & 3. The greater horsepower of the A900 wins through.

Quentin

 

[Joan]

Joan do you have PS on your system

No, Guy. I have PS Elements on my old PC, but need to get a Mac version one of these days.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Okay just wondering. was going to send you a action but only works in PS

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

2 is the Leica, no mistaking the AA filter (or lack of)!

 

[Vivek]

#2 is the best of the lot and it is from the Sony cam.

Jono, Unfair comparisons!

 

[Joan]

Okay just wondering. was going to send you a action but only works in PS

Thanks for the thought, Guy. I have been using LightZone for my other cameras, which is really fun, but it won't read my G10 files. So, just struggling with DPP at the moment.

 

[asabet]

For a change, I guessed correctly. The Sony looks great here. My favorite way to do these comparisons is to make each crop look as good as possible. That might mean giving a different amount of sharpening to each one, or using a different method of upsizing, but what I'm most interested in is seeing the best possible results from each camera compared at any given output size.

 

[jonoslack]

Okay, Okay
silly game
No 1 is the Leica
No 2 is the A900 (sony)
No 3 is the E3

I suppose that the lesson here is that pixels do count - incidentally, I no longer have the D700, but testing against the Leica earlier would suggest that it would have been similar or slightly worse.

Ben
Of course, if these had been 100% crops rather than crops of an area, then the lack of an AA filter would have been to the Leica advantage (but not as much as you might expect, as Amin would vouch for).

Vivek
I did have a go at 100% crops, but I couldn't easily work out what the focal lengths should be. I thought I could just shoot them all at 35mm (real not equivalent) but of course, the Sony came out bigger because it has more pixels. Then I got bored!

You say it's not fair, but I'm not sure about that - but if it isn't fair, what should one be doing!

Amin
I usually make the most of them as well, but I think that probably, in these circumstances it would simply have exacerbated the result.

Incidentally, if the crop is coming up as about 8" on your screen (as it does on mine) then you are looking at the equivalent of about a 40" print.

The idea of the comparison (apart from a bit of fun) was to tell me what difference the A900 was giving me in terms of IQ for a large print (in this case on A0 paper with a bit of a border).

Worth noting that the similarity between the E3 and the M8 is not so surprising in that I was using the image HEIGHT as the reference point, rather than the width (which is a bit less on 4:3).

Colour and Dynamic range are other issues, and it looks to me as though Sony have done rather well here.

I guess it all adds up to our general understanding.

 

[Quentin_Bargate]

You keep me teetering on the brink, Jono. I keep thinking I have dismissed the A900 but then along you come and rekindle my interest then again, Nikon are supposed to have a big announcement soon.

Quentin

 

[jonoslack]

You keep me teetering on the brink, Jono. I keep thinking I have dismissed the A900 but then along you come and rekindle my interest then again, Nikon are supposed to have a big announcement soon.

Quentin

:ROTFL:
It makes it much more fun posting these when I know you're around!

I hope you're well.

M type Nikon - that's the one . . . .then again, business is good (isn't it?) why not an S2?

 

[Vivek]

Jono, I did not say what is unfair!

Sony rocks!

 

[Quentin_Bargate]

:ROTFL:
It makes it much more fun posting these when I know you're around!

I hope you're well.

M type Nikon - that's the one . . . .then again, business is good (isn't it?) why not an S2?

Hi Jono,

We are (all) fine but a bit "weddinged out"

M Type Nikon as you rightly say. And if it matches expectations, I may well be interested. Business is fine, but who knows with this credit debacle?

Love an S2, but its still vapourware. But I guarantee we will *both* end up buying one though . You know it :ROTFL:

Quentin

 

[Brian Mosley]

Hi Jono,

I think that scaling the extra resolution down to 900pixels is giving the A900 a natural sharpening effect - if you apply sharpening to the other two images it would be a more interesting comparison!

Just out of interest, how much would an A900 and a Zeiss 24-70 cost?

Kind Regards

Brian