XZ-1 RAW IQ rivals GF1 RAW (m4/3) ?

[DHart]

It would appear that the RAW output of the XZ-1 at least rivals that of the GF1 m4/3 with the stellar Lumix 20mm f/1.7. Can this be? Has Olympus, by virtue of the Zuiko lens quality and small camera sensor improvements, brought the XZ-1 to m4/3's door step?

Olympus XZ-1 Review: 11. Compared to (Raw): Digital Photography Review

I've been studying this image in many areas, with the RAW output from the XZ1 and the GF1, at 100 and 400 ISO, and it certainly looks like this new camera rivals m4/3. Or am I missing something?

For my own needs, I'm unconcerned with JPG performance and I'm only comparing RAW output, because I prefer to shoot only RAW and process images myself.

Your thoughts?

 

[usathyan]

The actual sensor size of XZ-1 is much smaller than m4/3...so, all of the claimed benefits have to be with "software/firmware" of the camera...there are other factors as well...but, if one is after the size of the camera itself (on how portable it is) - thats a different question...to my hands - GF1 is the smallest usable camera size without fumbling/accidental tripping the controls...

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

What are you comparing with? What RAW converter supports both? I can't judge based on DPReviews settings...

 

[DHart]

Ben... on the linked page at DPR, you can select what cameras you want to compare and then move the little viewer window around the sample picture to compare the cameras at different areas of the image. I downloaded the XZ-1 RAW file, but I need to find a converter to open it as ACR doesn't yet read that format.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

I agree to a point. This reminds me of the comparison I did between the E-5 and several other cameras. In this case, the XZ-1 shows an amazing amount of detail, and rivals not only the GF1, but also any crop sensor DSLR. However, there's much more noise, even at ISO100. Look at the clean colour surfaces, and you'll see that they are not so clean.

However, the big question is if this noise will show up in print, or if it can even be washed away with some competent noise detergent. I wouldn't be surprised if prints up to A3 format would look very similar to its more advanced bigger brothers. That is, unless the colours look different, and I'm a bit disappointed with the reds from the XZ-1. Hopefully nothing that can't be adjusted in ACR.

What this also shows very clearly again, is that the lens is more important than the sensor, unless you are going to take photos after dark. Olympus has shown repeatedly that their optics are second to none, and with this little camera, they really seem to have topped any previous attempts. The images are simply sharp all over, with lots of detail. Even the highly acclaimed LX5 (with a much shorter zoom range) cannot follow the Olympus here. Very impressive!

 

[DHart]

Jorgen... Good points. A characteristic of this camera seems to be that it provides somewhat sharper, crisper detail than the competition, but with a bit more noise. Shooting in RAW and given a bit of "noise detergent" as you call it (I like the name!) in post, it seems as though excellent IQ is possible with the camera. Reviews indicate, though, that in JPG at higher ISO, the in-camera noise suppression is heavy handed and leads to some smearing.

It would seem that this is a good camera choice for those who wish to do their own processing from RAW images and perhaps not so great for those who might use it with higher ISOs and JPG mode. Of course, as with all things and especially all cameras, it isn't perfect, there is no free lunch, and there are always compromises of one sort or another.

I am vacillating between choosing this one or an LX5 for my "running out the door, quick, grab a camera... camera.". It looks like this one may have a bit of an edge in IQ vs. The LX5, but at present, I'm leaning more toward the LX5 for it's wider focal length, multi aspect sensor, and much better video options. Either one seems to be able to provide about as good IQ as one might expect with RAW output from a compact class of camera.