Site Sponsors
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 120

Thread: E5 vs D700--tests

  1. #51
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,929
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    Quote Originally Posted by t_streng View Post
    It will be still interesting to see what comes next from Nikon- since this comparison is a 2-3 year old D700 vs a brand new E5.
    The logical "next step" for the Nikon D700 is to incorporate video capture, as Canon did with the 5D to 5D II model upgrade (and Nikon did with the D300 to D300s too). Whether they up the pixel resolution or improve anything else ... yeah, well, I bet they'll do something.

    IMO, All these high-end cameras are reaching the point of diminishing returns in pixel density and low light capability. The next great avenue of development is almost certainly video capabilities ... all of them have a lot of growth in that direction yet to come.

    I'm not a "switcher" although I'm brand agnostic (except for Sigma ... won't buy anything from them at all :-). I participate in the gear-head-curiosity game but keep it separate from my work in Photography ...

    ... "Equipment often gets in the way of Photography." ...

  2. #52
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Warsaw, Poland
    Posts
    188
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    Quote Originally Posted by t_streng View Post
    Still - more than 12MP would not hurt at all.
    It COULD hurt the picture quality.
    Remember the Mhz race? At ca 3Ghz it turned out faster PCs deliver diminishing returns. Now it's multithreading, memory, bus speed etc.
    Really good 12Mpix can print up to A2 size undistinguishable from 24MPix originating file*. How come?
    First you have the imaging system resolution. The product of : lens, AA filter, sensor, processor, debayer and JPEG/raw developer software. 4/3 was optimized for digital and nobody knows it better than Olympus. The result maximum horizontal resolutions are 2350 lw/ph or line widths per picture height (GH1 +Zuiko 50/2) and 2700 lw/ph for all FF 24Mpix combos. The difference is of 15% at most. Or used to be, as I believe E5 with the 14-35/2 could be at 2500 lw/ph (waiting for that glass).
    It seems to me that E5 is perfectly tuned to Zuiko glass and there is little to be gained from more pixels ( first reports on GH2 18 Mpix).
    What we need more now is dynamic range, color, low noise. To me the megapixel race might as well stop at 12 million pixels for printouts.
    For electronic display it stopped years ago. Who shows their pictures on 4000x3000 displays? Not too many of those around.
    *cropping to A# (sq root 2) print format is equally depriving for 3:2 and 4:3 ratios.
    Last edited by nugat; 16th November 2010 at 08:27.

  3. #53
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,871
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    Quote Originally Posted by nugat View Post
    It COULD hurt the picture quality.
    Remember the Mhz race? At ca 3Ghz it turned out faster PCs deliver diminishing returns. Now it's multithreading, memory, bus speed etc.
    Really good 12Mpix can print up to A2 size undistinguishable from 24MPix originating file*. How come?
    First you have the imaging system resolution. The product of : lens, AA filter, sensor, processor, debayer and JPEG/raw developer software. 4/3 was optimized for digital and nobody knows it better than Olympus. The result maximum horizontal resolutions are 2350 lw/ph or line widths per picture height (GH1 +Zuiko 50/2) and 2700 lw/ph for all FF 24Mpix combos. The difference is of 15% at most. Or used to be, as I believe E5 with the 14-35/2 could be at 2500 lw/ph (waiting for that glass).
    It seems to me that E5 is perfectly tuned to Zuiko glass and there is little to be gained from more pixels ( first reports on GH2 18 Mpix).
    What we need more now is dynamic range, color, low noise. To me the megapixel race might as well stop at 12 million pixels for printouts.
    For electronic display it stopped years ago. Who shows their pictures on 4000x3000 displays? Not too many of those around.
    *cropping to A# (sq root 2) print format is equally depriving for 3:2 and 4:3 ratios.
    Very well said!

    Nevertheless, what do you think then about the rumored next generation Pro bodies from Canon and Nikon which should offer resolutions between 30-40MP? Assume that 40MP would be possible, how would that translate into lw/ph (if we assume that their lenses can follow this) ?

    And let me add the (more rhetorical) question: Why do camera vendors still sell and advertise their cameras (systems) with MP count and not better with lw/ph count? I think I know some answer here, but would like to hear your version ....

    Thanks!
    Last edited by ptomsu; 16th November 2010 at 09:22.

  4. #54
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    the d3x/a900/5dII do show that with good glass higher MP than the d700s 12MP does not hurt IQ at low and medium ISO.
    Upscaling images makes me allways feel like adding information which has not been there in reality.

  5. #55
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,871
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    Quote Originally Posted by t_streng View Post
    the d3x/a900/5dII do show that with good glass higher MP than the d700s 12MP does not hurt IQ at low and medium ISO.
    Upscaling images makes me allways feel like adding information which has not been there in reality.
    Hmm - not saying myself that higher resolutions hurts, but I owned the 5D2 and the A900 and I always own the best glass for these systems (I know I am a gearhead ) but I must say that I was not so impressed with the outcome of both cameras - A900 of course was better, but resolution wise and detail wise (I used Zeiss/Sony glass) I was not overwhelmed.

    I think part of this is the strong AA filters of these cameras. So I also think in order that the next step in resolution makes sense the AA filters have to get MUCH weaker or disappear totally. Like in MFDBs.

    Of course adding some 5-6MP to the current 12MP E5 sensor would bring some benefits and I am pretty sure that Olympus could handle the (fast) processing of these date. I simply believe that at the time they started the design/development of the E5 there was no such 18MP 43 sensor, as it will show up in the GH2. And their marketing department said they need to come NOW with the E5 and not some 6 months later ....

  6. #56
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Warsaw, Poland
    Posts
    188
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    Very well said!

    Nevertheless, what do you think then about the rumored next generation Pro bodies from Canon and Nikon which should offer resolutions between 30-40MP? Assume that 40MP would be possible, how would that translate into lw/ph (if we assume that their lenses can follow this) ?

    And let me add the (more rhetorical) question: Why do camera vendors still sell and advertise their cameras (systems) with MP count and not better with lw/ph count? I think I know some answer here, but would like to hear your version ....

    Thanks!
    I am not an engineer, I just play one in the commercial.
    Advertising in Megapixels is similar to horsepower in cars. The real test is the time per one loop of Nurburgring racetrack. Or lw/ph of the system.

    30-40MPix is, say, a 7500x5000 pixels. The Nyquist limit of 5000 pixels tall sensor is 2500lp/ph (line pairs per picture height) or 2500/24mm=104 lp/mm (line pairs per milimeter). The current top FF lens deliver 40-50 lp/mm at 50% contrast (MTF). To deliver 100lp/mm they would need to be 2-2.5x bigger. Good luck.
    PS. Olympus zuiko SHG is as big as FF lens just to deliver the 100lp/mm resolution MTF50 on the 4/3 sensor. 13mm x100= 1300lp/ph whereas the theoretical Nyquist limit is 1500 lp/ph . The actual performance at 85% Nyquist is world record along with Leica M9+Elmar Leica glass (Erwin Puts at imx.nl). A good figure is 70% of Nyquist.
    Last edited by nugat; 16th November 2010 at 10:08.

  7. #57
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,871
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    @ nugat

    Well I did a little calculation myself and I come to the following:

    E5 with a sensor size of 13 mm ph x 17.3 mm pw with 12.3 MP results in 225 mm2 and this means 54666 pixels/mm2 which results in approximately 238 pixels/mm. Given a ph of 13mm these are 3094 pixels. With Nyquist you end up in 1547 lp/ph - same result as you came up.

    If I go to the Oly website, I only can find MTF for e.g. SWD 14-35 which shows a highest contrast value of approx. 95 with 10 lp/mm or 75 with 60 lp/mm at Wide end. From this I cannot see how you come to 100 lp/mm at 50 percent contrast - is this value true???? If so then your calculation is right that 100 lp/mm x 13mm results in 1300 lp/ph.

    Now if I do the same for D3X FF ....

    D3X with a sensor size of 24mm ph x 36 mm pw with 24.5 MP results in 864 mm2 and this means 28356 pixels/mm2 which results in approximately 168 pixels/mm (which BTW is only 70% of the pixel density of the E5, so there is for sure room for improvement, as long as Nikkor lenses add to this). Given a ph of 24mm in FF you end up in 4032 pixels. With Nyquist you end up in 2016 lp/ph.

    Looking at the Nikon website, for the 2.8/24-70 for MTF you find a highest contrast value of approx. 98 with 10 lp/mm or 88 with 30 lp/mm. If I do a similar extrapolation as you assumed for Zuiko at 50% contrast value, this should at least also result in 100 lp/mm. This gives you then 2400 lp/ph - slightly above the Nyquist limit of this 24.5 MP sensor.

    What can we conclude from of this:

    1) Top Zuiko glass and top Nikkor glass are equally good - at least WRT MTF!
    2) With the E5 and 12.3 MP you already reach (or come slightly over) the theoretical limit of 1300 lp/ph for a top Zuiko lens. So even a higher resolution sensor would not add to this.
    3) With Nikkor and D3X you are still below that limit. Which means you could have a 34.5 MP FF sensor, (2400x2 by 2400x3 results in 34.4MP) in order to make full use of state of the art top Nikkors.

    I think what we have so far left out of these considerations is the AA filter and post processing. The strong AA filter in the D3X for sure will limit that theoretical 2016 Nyquist limit to maybe 1700 - 1800. Given that it would be fair to compare the allow to compare the E5 with its 12.3 MP resolution to the D3X with 24.5 MP resolution, always assuming one uses top lenses of both brands.

    Question remains - will Olympus be able to further improve with higher resolution sensors (say 18MP)? And how far better will a D4X with 34.5 MP work with the top Nikkor lenses.

    MTF Charts attached - first 2 are Zuiko at 2.0 at 14 and 35 respectively, second 2 are Nikkor at 2.8 at 24 and 70 respectively.
    Last edited by ptomsu; 17th November 2010 at 02:26.

  8. #58
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Warsaw, Poland
    Posts
    188
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    I should not have been getting onto the murky ground of resolution in the first place.
    First of all I know nothing how manufacturers MTF graphs are obtained. If somebody can point me to a statement from a major maker (CaNikon etc) how they do that, I'd be grateful. Are they theoretical figures? Measured? How? On a camera? With optical bench/ equipment?
    Additionally they present their figures in often incomparable formats: different lines numbers is common (10/30 for Canikon, 20/40 for Panasonic, 20/60 for Olympus etc etc).
    Secondly all review sites I know test whole systems (lens, AA filter, sensor, electronics, algorithms) and not lenses. Moreover almost all of them use Imatest software, often which they use incorrectly (I have examples but have no intention to wage private wars here).
    The only site I have some trust on methodologies is Erwin Puts at imx.nl.
    What we would really need to see for a meaningful comparison of LENS parameters is a comprehensive set of scientific methods (lens projector, optical bench with MTF analysis etc). Maybe it's an idea for a business.
    Having said that, I have to admit that my figures are conjectures based on anecdotal and circumstantial evidence rather than scientific facts.
    First is a thorough reading of the aforementioned Puts site and what he has to say about lenses.
    Second is cinematography. Here glass is tested with lens projectors mostly. We see that Zeiss Master series is really better than others. We also know that Arriscan considers 4k scanning as sufficient for resolution and 6k for other aspects of picture information. That roughly corresponds to 4000dpi used in Nikon film (36x24) scanners or the height of the 24 megapixel sensor (6000x4000)
    If Arri and Nikon limit their resolution capture at that figure, it's a hint where the actual glass resolution limits lie. In case of arri we talk about 15k a pop cinematography primes, each 2 kg heavy and really huge.
    Therefore I do not believe that the current crop FF glass can benefit from a 30-40 mpix 36x24mm sensors. That was also confirmed by Leica starting the S2 line in medium format (37mpix) with a whole new lines of lenses (fairly big). If they thought anything was to be gained in 36x24, the R line would have been continued.
    But most of that is conjectures as I said, so better wait for those 30Mpix+ sensors from Canikon and see.

  9. #59
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,871
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    I think we are not so far from reality with your calculations and mine (or maybe better call it observations).

    What the main outcome is that 43 glass at its best can resolve up to 1300 lp/ph if you assume some 50% contrast and 100lp/mm - which can be basically read out of the MTF charts we have and I trust they are somehow correct, otherwise to hell with those companies.

    That means the current 12MP sensor is already above the limit what good Zuiko lenses can resolve. Does that mean that higher resolution is not necessary? Potentially not, because you can gain still more lp/ph with higher contrast, so maybe the sweetspot should be around 16-16MP for 43 (and same for M43). Again, not really scientific, but I think we are pretty close to the truth.

    For Nikon that measn, that their top grade glass is obviously not worse than Zuiko glass, which is often consensus unfortunately. With their new nanocoated lenses they usually to or are at least on par with Zuiko lenses. What that means in terms of resolution is, that they deliver 2400 lp/ph for FF, which is not exactly double the number which Zuiko would deliver (they would come to 2600 lp/ph) but this is rather theoretical, as Zuiko is not calculates for FF (24 mm ph) but only for 43 (13 mm ph). So for me this is actually quite the same quality!

    Now take the current top Nikon sensor in the D3X with 24.5 MP, which can resolve due to Nyquist 2016 lp/ph, which is still a lot below the resolution limit of 2400 lp/ph for top level Nikkors. So this leaves room for improvement. As I said a sensor making use of the full Nikkor resolution would then be 34.5MP, but same is true here, more resolution will not hurt, because this is all calculated for 50% contrast, so at higher contrast levels maybe 40MP would be kind of sweetspot here in FF.

    What does that mean? Olympus is currently already at the edge of what makes sense for their 43 system, Nikon has much more room for improvement. Magical? Not at all - simple physics, 4x larger sensor etc. etc.

    On the other side I am well aware of other issues you get with higher resolution like diffraction etc, but this is a different story and even more true for Olympus with their smaller sensor size. So has anybody done any meaningful diffraction tests with some top level Zuikos stopped down?

    I for myself am very grateful that you initiated this discussion, because it made me investigate myself and start calculating myself and find that I will be better suited to stay with Nikon. But everyone will have their preferences of course

  10. #60
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    519
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    Soon we will have more comparisons between existing u43 sensors and new one - coming with GH2, which has increased resolution.
    Then we will see if more details can be seen and with which lenses.

  11. #61
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Warsaw, Poland
    Posts
    188
    Post Thanks / Like

    Do current lenses outresolve sensors

    I still doubt camera FF Nikkors can reach 100lp/mm ACROSS the image circle.
    (Well, there is one nikkor that sure can do even more--the printing Nikkor).
    The parameters of the mount diameter and distance to the sensor and its size are not optimal from the digital point of view. They are on 4/3: big mount diameter, almost the same flangeback distance as FF and small sensor. Therefore Zuikos can fly across the 4/3 frame with resolution, vignetting, CA etc. But the price is the SHG size.
    For FF Nikkors to try match that behavior they'd need to be 2-3 times bigger than now to start with, IMHO.
    It would be interesting to mount the new cine Leica primes on a D3x, supposedly they cover the FF (43mm) image circle.
    I am afraid that would require alterations to the mount and mirror though (flange back distance). And those babies weigh 2 kg and cost 15,000$ a pop.
    When I get the ordered SHG glass I'll also borrow D3x and do some tests with Nikkors.
    As for diffraction, I believe it is fair to assume that Zuikos (similar to Leica) are diffraction limited ie. only physics limits them, not construction. In 4/3 and with the 12Mpixel sensor the Airy disk becomes bigger than the assumed CoC (circle of confussion, for 4/3 CoC= 0,015mm) at f13.
    But frankly, before we get to diffraction at f13, there will be focussing errors, camera shake, mirror slap, visibility ....So even on 4/3, with Zuikos, diffraction is a theoretical problem, I think.
    (nice diffraction calculator here:
    http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tut...hotography.htm)

    PS. Even if current nikkors seriously outresolve the 24Mpix sensor the gain in resolution from going to a 37mpix sensor will be 25% in lw/ph.
    Last edited by nugat; 18th November 2010 at 00:59.

  12. #62
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    Quote Originally Posted by t_streng View Post
    the d3x/a900/5dII do show that with good glass higher MP than the d700s 12MP does not hurt IQ at low and medium ISO.
    Upscaling images makes me allways feel like adding information which has not been there in reality.
    HI Tom
    I quite agree - but downsizing is a perfectly good thing.
    I think that all the maths about this rather beggars the question of the reality.
    The reality I see when comparing my D700 images to my A900 images (I did this in some detail recently when doing two wedding books, 1 with each camera).

    1. pixel peeping at 100% shows how much better the D700 pixels are - especially in low light
    2. this relates to nothing in the real world because you are looking at a much larger portion of the image.
    3. downsizing the A900 pictures produced high ISO values very little different from the D700
    4. cropping the A900 pictures left lots of resolution, cropping the D700 shots was actually a real problem.

    When you consider the pixel density of relative cameras and sensors, and look at the quality of the new 16mp sensor it seems to me that either:
    1. a 40mp FF camera will be just fine
    or
    2. the pixel density on the E5 is too high

    I think 1 is the case

    pixel density:
    D700: 1.4 MP/cm
    D3X: 2.9 MP/cm
    D7000: 4.4 MP/cm
    E5: 5.1 MP/cm

    just as a matter of interest, the pixel density of the new Panasonic LX5 is
    24 MP/cm . . . . imagine that on a full frame sensor!

    The E5 proves that 5.1 MP/cm does a fine job - so lets see a new Sony/Nikon full frame sensor with that kind of sensor density.

    I know I'd rather downsize images to remove noise than upsize them to increase detail!

    . . . . and I don't care about Nyquist and MTF charts proving that each pixel is less good - experience tells me that in the real world more of them (within reason) is better!

    all the best

    Just this guy you know

  13. #63
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,871
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do current lenses outresolve sensors

    Quote Originally Posted by nugat View Post
    I still doubt camera FF Nikkors can reach 100lp/mm ACROSS the image circle.
    (Well, there is one nikkor that sure can do even more--the printing Nikkor).
    The parameters of the mount diameter and distance to the sensor and its size are not optimal from the digital point of view. They are on 4/3: big mount diameter, almost the same flangeback distance as FF and small sensor. Therefore Zuikos can fly across the 4/3 frame with resolution, vignetting, CA etc. But the price is the SHG size.
    For FF Nikkors to try match that behavior they'd need to be 2-3 times bigger than now to start with, IMHO.
    It would be interesting to mount the new cine Leica primes on a D3x, supposedly they cover the FF (43mm) image circle.
    I am afraid that would require alterations to the mount and mirror though (flange back distance). And those babies weigh 2 kg and cost 15,000$ a pop.
    When I get the ordered SHG glass I'll also borrow D3x and do some tests with Nikkors.
    As for diffraction, I believe it is fair to assume that Zuikos (similar to Leica) are diffraction limited ie. only physics limits them, not construction. In 4/3 and with the 12Mpixel sensor the Airy disk becomes bigger than the assumed CoC (circle of confussion, for 4/3 CoC= 0,015mm) at f13.
    But frankly, before we get to diffraction at f13, there will be focussing errors, camera shake, mirror slap, visibility ....So even on 4/3, with Zuikos, diffraction is a theoretical problem, I think.
    (nice diffraction calculator here:
    http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tut...hotography.htm)

    PS. Even if current nikkors seriously outresolve the 24Mpix sensor the gain in resolution from going to a 37mpix sensor will be 25% in lw/ph.
    Well, you took the example of MFT charts for Olympus. If we believe in what Oly publishes here, we also need to believe in what Nikon or others publish - right?

    I agree that all vendors try to draw their MFT charts differently, so that most of users cannot follow (or simply give up) and just believe the marketing message. Shame on the industry that there is nothing like a unified measurement here for MFTs.

    In fact I see NO reason why top Nikkor glass should not be able to fulfill what they publish in MFT. And this is on par with top Oly glass - right? And I am pretty sure in you take the latest development of Canon glass, it will be the same.

    Leica was always trying to do better especially when it came to optics and for sure they did so for the S system. Bur to think that any R glass would have done some job on the S2 sensor size is simply comparing apples with oranges - R glass NEVER was designed for that image circle! So Leica had to go a totally different path for their S system and develop glass from the scratch - which the again did with the expected quality and finally success!

    But to be honest, if we take MFT charts from Olympus and start deriving conclusions from them, then it is only fair to do the same with other vendors.

    WRT size of lenses - the Oly lenses I am talking about are all pro lenses with high apertures like 2.0/14-35. Which is as big as the 2.8/24-70 from Nikon. And here you are right, you gain 1 f stop while haveing similar size if you go 43. But that was always true and actually nothing new.

  14. #64
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,871
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    HI Tom
    I quite agree - but downsizing is a perfectly good thing.
    I think that all the maths about this rather beggars the question of the reality.
    The reality I see when comparing my D700 images to my A900 images (I did this in some detail recently when doing two wedding books, 1 with each camera).

    1. pixel peeping at 100% shows how much better the D700 pixels are - especially in low light
    2. this relates to nothing in the real world because you are looking at a much larger portion of the image.
    3. downsizing the A900 pictures produced high ISO values very little different from the D700
    4. cropping the A900 pictures left lots of resolution, cropping the D700 shots was actually a real problem.

    When you consider the pixel density of relative cameras and sensors, and look at the quality of the new 16mp sensor it seems to me that either:
    1. a 40mp FF camera will be just fine
    or
    2. the pixel density on the E5 is too high

    I think 1 is the case

    pixel density:
    D700: 1.4 MP/cm
    D3X: 2.9 MP/cm
    D7000: 4.4 MP/cm
    E5: 5.1 MP/cm

    just as a matter of interest, the pixel density of the new Panasonic LX5 is
    24 MP/cm . . . . imagine that on a full frame sensor!

    The E5 proves that 5.1 MP/cm does a fine job - so lets see a new Sony/Nikon full frame sensor with that kind of sensor density.

    I know I'd rather downsize images to remove noise than upsize them to increase detail!

    . . . . and I don't care about Nyquist and MTF charts proving that each pixel is less good - experience tells me that in the real world more of them (within reason) is better!

    all the best
    Jono,

    I see here the discussion about Sony (A900) versus Nikon (D3X and D700) coming up again. I must iterate here, I am maybe the only one, but I DID NOT LIKE SONY COLORS OUT OF THE BOX, so I went back to Nikon.

    I agree that more pixels is always better, if the design is done right. This is also the reason I am waiting for the next incarnation of high resolution Nikon DSLR (as maybe you are waiting in the Sony camp) to be able to push the optics to the limits and more importantly maybe find a "cheap" replacement for my MFD gear.

    And sorry - I cannot resist - I only hope for you that Sony does not stop the development of their FF DSLRs as was already rumored a lot

  15. #65
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Warsaw, Poland
    Posts
    188
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    @ nugat

    If I go to the Oly website, I only can find MTF for e.g. SWD 14-35 which shows a highest contrast value of approx. 95 with 10 lp/mm or 75 with 60 lp/mm at Wide end. From this I cannot see how you come to 100 lp/mm at 50 percent contrast - is this value true???? If so then your calculation is right that 100 lp/mm x 13mm results in 1300 lp/ph.

    Now if I do the same for D3X FF ....

    D3X with a sensor size of 24mm ph x 36 mm pw with 24.5 MP results in 864 mm2 and this means 28356 pixels/mm2 which results in approximately 168 pixels/mm (which BTW is only 70% of the pixel density of the E5, so there is for sure room for improvement, as long as Nikkor lenses add to this). Given a ph of 24mm in FF you end up in 4032 pixels. With Nyquist you end up in 2016 lp/ph.

    Looking at the Nikon website, for the 2.8/24-70 for MTF you find a highest contrast value of approx. 98 with 10 lp/mm or 88 with 30 lp/mm. If I do a similar extrapolation as you assumed for Zuiko at 50% contrast value, this should at least also result in 100 lp/mm. This gives you then 2400 lp/ph - slightly above the Nyquist limit of this 24.5 MP sensor.
    I never said I extrapolated the Zuiko 100lp/mm from the Oly MTF graphs alone. I would not know how to extrapolate from 20/60 lp at 95% and 75% contrast, the number of lines for 50% contrast. If there is a formula I'd like to learn it. Similarily if the nikkor shows for 10/30lp contrast of 98% and 88% respectively I do not know from that what the lp figure would be for 50%.
    But if you put these two graphs together, the correlation that emerges is that Oly for similar contrast gets almost double the resolution. Eg, in the center Oly 75%/60lp, Nikkor 88%/30lp. (88/75=17% deviation from 2x). In simple words the function looks very similar, but the units on the Oly resolution axis are double. From some more trusty (for me) sources (Puts/imx.nl/photo, lenstip.com, even dpreview.com after recent corrections) we might find that good FF glass tops out at +50lp/mm MTF50, never reaching , or physics forbid, exceeding the Nyquist limit. Therefore Oly glass might just offer 100lp/mm. (Excellent Leica glass delivers 80lp/mm).
    Some info herebut it's good to read more there)
    http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/leica/leica/page105.html
    http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/camera...3/page163.html
    PS.
    The very conservative lenstip.com finds in recent tests the resolution of the new panny pancake 28/2.5 at 70lp/mm. The conclusion is the glass is NOT very good overall.
    PSPS.
    I know, I said I do not trust manufacturers and reviewers. OK , my own tests above show E5+12-60mm at 2400lw/ph (1200lp/ph). Waiting for that 14-35/2 next week.

  16. #66
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,871
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    Quote Originally Posted by nugat View Post
    I never said I extrapolated the Zuiko 100lp/mm from the Oly MTF graphs alone. I would not know how to extrapolate from 20/60 lp at 95% and 75% contrast, the number of lines for 50% contrast. If there is a formula I'd like to learn it. Similarily if the nikkor shows for 10/30lp contrast of 98% and 88% respectively I do not know from that what the lp figure would be for 50%.
    But if you put these two graphs together, the correlation that emerges is that Oly for similar contrast gets almost double the resolution. Eg, in the center Oly 75%/60lp, Nikkor 88%/30lp. (88/75=17% deviation from 2x). In simple words the function looks very similar, but the units on the Oly resolution axis are double. From some more trusty (for me) sources (Puts/imx.nl/photo, lenstip.com, even dpreview.com after recent corrections) we might find that good FF glass tops out at +50lp/mm MTF50, never reaching , or physics forbid, exceeding the Nyquist limit. Therefore Oly glass might just offer 100lp/mm. (Excellent Leica glass delivers 80lp/mm).
    Some info herebut it's good to read more there)
    http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/leica/leica/page105.html
    http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/camera...3/page163.html
    PS.
    The very conservative lenstip.com finds in recent tests the resolution of the new panny pancake 28/2.5 at 70lp/mm. The conclusion is the glass is NOT very good overall.
    PSPS.
    I know, I said I do not trust manufacturers and reviewers. OK , my own tests above show E5+12-60mm at 2400lw/ph (1200lp/ph). Waiting for that 14-35/2 next week.
    If you have 20/60 lp at 95% and 75% contrast respectively it is pretty fair to assume that you would have 100lp at 50% contrast - right=? Where else did you get the 100lp at 50% contrast then? (just want to understand ....)

    For me the MTF of the Nikkor shows similar values at least in the center of the image. Sure, if you come out of the center the Oly glass wins. And if you compare that the Zuiko values are at f2.0 and the Nikkoe values at f2.8, then Oly is the clear winner from the lens side.

    I think that this reflects the real state, as building a perfect lens for 43 size is easier (or gives you more constructive freedom) compared to FF (4x the image size).

    Having said that I am still not sure if 43 is the sweetspot in image size - but I agree this is a more theoretical question to answer. But one other thing comes to my mind here - APSC would be the next size which established over the last decade. Why we do not find more perfect glass for APSC might be the reason because this is always considered kind of the cheap product lines of a company and not the top or pro lines - think that could be a reason.

    I think our calculations are pretty ok still!

    PS: Anyway I am interested in how the 2/14-35 performs with the E5.

    PS1: I am going to order the GH2 as I really want to see how this beast performs with its 16MP resolution a M43 glass.

    PS2: Not quite sure if I really want to abandon my Nikon FF line after all I found and discovered so far.

  17. #67
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,929
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    ...
    PS: Anyway I am interested in how the 2/14-35 performs with the E5.
    ...
    According to several folks I chat with on another forum who have the 14-35/2, the E-5 has now made this their absolute favorite lens, rarely off the camera. They all complained, intermittently, of focusing issues with the 14-35/2 on the E-3 and other bodies although not a one ever complained about its performance optically.

    I suspect that for what I like to shoot, I could buy one and super-glue it to an E-5, and be completely happy. ;-)

  18. #68
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Warsaw, Poland
    Posts
    188
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    If you have 20/60 lp at 95% and 75% contrast respectively it is pretty fair to assume that you would have 100lp at 50% contrast - right=? Where else did you get the 100lp at 50% contrast then? (just want to understand ....)
    .
    It is not obvious to me. There shoud be a function formula to assume that, but supposedly this graph is a physical representation, not a simple function. I can be wrong of course.
    I said I regret getting into this resolution stuff. The zuiko 100lp/mm is based on circumstantial evidence not a fact I know for sure. Leica best glass reaches 100lp/mm and Zuiko is not worse supposeedly. Etc etc. Let's just leave it and wait for the D4x to check.

  19. #69
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,871
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    Quote Originally Posted by nugat View Post
    It is not obvious to me. There shoud be a function formula to assume that, but supposedly this graph is a physical representation, not a simple function. I can be wrong of course.
    I said I regret getting into this resolution stuff. The zuiko 100lp/mm is based on circumstantial evidence not a fact I know for sure. Leica best glass reaches 100lp/mm and Zuiko is not worse supposeedly. Etc etc. Let's just leave it and wait for the D4x to check.
    Ok, got it

    I am grateful that you brought up this discussion, good stuff and a typical example why I LIKE this forum

  20. #70
    Senior Member Riley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Adelaide Hills South Australia
    Posts
    441
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    I think it's the same sensor isn't it?

    What gets me is everyone going on about how small 4/3 sensors are in comparison, but actually, in terms of height, there really is very little difference, more in width, but of course thats 3:4 rather than 2:3 aspect ratio.

    There isn't any reason why 4/3 sensors shouldn't be within a gnat's crotchet of APSc in terms of high ISO and quality . . . just that they haven't been in the past.

    all the best
    and all true
    one of the things that happens in comparison becomes a duel of percentages, this sensor is 50% bigger than that, with the underlying intuition that the IQ must be 50% better

    Knight Palm woke me up to this and did comparisons in the following table to e/v, this alleviates the perceptual error created by using percentages, which actually squares the differences in sensor size. In this way 4/3rds is (1.94 - 1.38) 0.56 stop behind Canon APSC and (1.94 - 1.21) 0.73 stop behind 1.5x. This is in my view a far better way of handling this, as it gives you the F stops apart (which is what really matters) and accounts for format differences unique to 4/3rds.



    and just an observation but,
    this method seems to be so far been avoided by the 'equivalence' conspirators,
    and noting that 5D is 1 point off being real FF

  21. #71
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,871
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    Quote Originally Posted by Riley View Post
    and all true
    one of the things that happens in comparison becomes a duel of percentages, this sensor is 50% bigger than that, with the underlying intuition that the IQ must be 50% better

    Knight Palm woke me up to this and did comparisons in the following table to e/v, this alleviates the perceptual error created by using percentages, which actually squares the differences in sensor size. In this way 4/3rds is (1.94 - 1.38) 0.56 stop behind Canon APSC and (1.94 - 1.21) 0.73 stop behind 1.5x. This is in my view a far better way of handling this, as it gives you the F stops apart (which is what really matters) and accounts for format differences unique to 4/3rds.



    and just an observation but,
    this method seems to be so far been avoided by the 'equivalence' conspirators,
    and noting that 5D is 1 point off being real FF
    What does he mean with EV ?????

  22. #72
    Senior Member Riley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Adelaide Hills South Australia
    Posts
    441
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    What does he mean with EV ?????
    ev is exposure value
    in this case the chart identifies the exposure value from FF for all formats. In order to depict the difference in ev between other formats just subtract one form the other. A difference in value of 1.00, is one stop

  23. #73
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,871
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    Quote Originally Posted by Riley View Post
    ev is exposure value
    in this case the chart identifies the exposure value from FF for all formats. In order to depict the difference in ev between other formats just subtract one form the other. A difference in value of 1.00, is one stop
    Ok, if this is Exposure Value - I thought EV is calculated of f-stop and shutter speed ...

    How does that relate to sensor size?

  24. #74
    Senior Member Riley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Adelaide Hills South Australia
    Posts
    441
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    Ok, if this is Exposure Value - I thought EV is calculated of f-stop and shutter speed ...

    How does that relate to sensor size?
    we say (as an approximation) that FF is 2 stops from 4/3rds right?
    the actual difference in light is 1.94 stops, and so it goes for other formats there which are listed in their relationship to FF

  25. #75
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,871
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    Quote Originally Posted by Riley View Post
    we say (as an approximation) that FF is 2 stops from 4/3rds right?
    the actual difference in light is 1.94 stops, and so it goes for other formats there which are listed in their relationship to FF
    Issue is, if this tells really something about IQ etc. While FF is 2 stops from FF in 43, this means that you will get same DOF at a common focal length using e.g. 2.0 in 43 instead of 4.0 in FF. That is true, but it nowhere reflects the IQ achievable.

    I think that one never can argue against 4x the sensor size between FF and 43, which makes it MUCH easier to achieve good higher ISO because of the size of the pixels at same resolution. Now today vendors obviously manage to overcome a lot of these restrictions with some advanced sensor technologies and advanced signal processing. Having said that - if one would make use of those advanced technologies also for FF it would give another quantum leap over smaller size sensors like 43 again. These are simply physical restrictions.

    What worries me more is that all DSLR vendors still deal with AA filters - although Leica and MF vendors have proven that this is not necessary! If they would work without AA filters (or at least very weak ones as the E5 does) the IQ would be much higher. But it would also need much more advanced processing. Which in turn can no longer be the real issue today!

    I would highly prefer say a Nikon D4X FF with maybe 20MP and WITHOUT AA filter, which in turn would be much slower (maybe only 3 FPS, as I need no image firing machine) but does real advanced processing of the image. In turn all the vendors are keen to show highest FPS rates and thus they need to filter heavily, in order to take details out of the taken images in order to make this processing work for so many frames per second - really weird.

    What 43 really brings is the optimized sensor size for the lenses (or vice versa) which is really unique on the market and only a second vendor has done a complete reinvention of a system for digital which is Leica with their S System. All the others try to tweak their existing lens mounts and distances for digital, which finally never can deliver the same results as a system developed from the scratch.

    I think that 43 has really done one of the best things when defining the sensor size as it is and the lenses resulting from that. Had they taken an APSC sensor size, that would have resulted in significantly larger lenses for the same IQ level as current 43 glass offers. Another major quantum leap will be possible with M43, as lenses can still get smaller than 43 glass. But so far real Pro lenses do not exist for M43 as we all know, maybe this is the next step.

    Had a vendor taken FF and designed a complete new digital system around that, then everything (mount and lenses) would be significantly larger compared to today's FF. Somehow you can sense this by looking at the S system, which has a larger than FF sensor, but not as much, but think of a pretty similar lens size for FF digital if it would have been designed from scratch for digital. Or take the Hasselblad H system, which was designed with digital in mind and see how large the lenses are there - of course for medium format. But they are much larger compared to Phase, which is still based on the "old" analog system parameters.

    Etc, etc.

  26. #76
    Pesitalia
    Guest

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    Quote Originally Posted by Riley View Post
    we say (as an approximation) that FF is 2 stops from 4/3rds right?
    the actual difference in light is 1.94 stops, and so it goes for other formats there which are listed in their relationship to FF
    I am a little bit confused here. I tought that EV values are independent from sensor format; in fact if I take a picture in a sunny day with a D700 and an E5 both set at 100 ISO, I will get 1/125sec at f/8 for both as long as the lenses have the same equivalent focal lenght or angle of view (let's say a Nikkor 50mm and a PL 25mm). The only difference would be in the DOF which will be about twice for the E3+25mm. In terms of light we will get same EV for both (likely EV=13).

    Form another perspective the amount of light hitting 4/3 sensor is going to be about 1/4 of the light hitting FF because 4/3 lens diaphram is set at 3,125mm diam. while FF diaphram diameter will be 6,25mm:

    FF exposed area thru the lens = 30,7 mm2
    4/3 exposed area thru the lens = 7,7 mm2.

    On the other end the 4/3 sensor has just about 1/4 the area of a FF sensor, thus the amount of light per unit area is the same, which justifies the equal settings for shooting under same conditions.

    Really, the only difference remains DOF.

    carlo

  27. #77
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,871
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    Quote Originally Posted by Pesitalia View Post
    I am a little bit confused here. I tought that EV values are independent from sensor format; in fact if I take a picture in a sunny day with a D700 and an E5 both set at 100 ISO, I will get 1/125sec at f/8 for both as long as the lenses have the same equivalent focal lenght or angle of view (let's say a Nikkor 50mm and a PL 25mm). The only difference would be in the DOF which will be about twice for the E3+25mm. In terms of light we will get same EV for both (likely EV=13).

    Form another perspective the amount of light hitting 4/3 sensor is going to be about 1/4 of the light hitting FF because 4/3 lens diaphram is set at 3,125mm diam. while FF diaphram diameter will be 6,25mm:

    FF exposed area thru the lens = 30,7 mm2
    4/3 exposed area thru the lens = 7,7 mm2.

    On the other end the 4/3 sensor has just about 1/4 the area of a FF sensor, thus the amount of light per unit area is the same, which justifies the equal settings for shooting under same conditions.

    Really, the only difference remains DOF.

    carlo
    This was precisely my point. I do not understand that table either.

  28. #78
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Warsaw, Poland
    Posts
    188
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    f# is a dimensionless figure telling us about ratios of light falling per AREA UNIT in the focus plane. f4 is always 2x more light than f2.8, and 2x less than f5.6 , for a given scene ( framing) with the same lighting. Hand held exposure (light ) meters gave the same EI pairs of shutter/aperture regardless of format (for the same ISO). DOF on the other hand is a subjective and conventional measure of sharpness based solely on the assumed circle of confusion (CoC). We are still using the 19th century notion of sharpness, whereas a 8x10 inch contact print looked upon from one foot was deemed sharp if the CoC was not bigger than 1/100inch.
    Last edited by nugat; 21st November 2010 at 06:00.

  29. #79
    robertro
    Guest

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    Beyond the limitations of maintaining support for non-digital lenses, I have to imagine that theoretical limits are largely overcome by financial concerns.

    I can just imagine the conversation at the Nikon (and likely Canon) lens engineering R&D meetings; "you want $2 million to develop a new high end FF lens that'll sell 2000 copies - he wants the same amount to develop a slow crop zoom that'll sell 50,000 copies and help achieve margins for our new entry-level body - OK you full-frame guy get $100k, low-cost guy $1.9M. Do your best".

  30. #80
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Warsaw, Poland
    Posts
    188
    Post Thanks / Like

    new pics from E5 vs D700

    I went for a walk today with both combos: D700+24-120VR and E5+12-60.
    You can download the direct comparisons here for private use only (the "D700 vs E5" album):

    http://gallery.me.com/nugat#gallery

    These are big jpegs: 6-11MB. At around 2:1 compression they are visually lossless, full size, no crops. Only the "Palace" I bothered to compare here and include Oly raw (ORF) to jpeg developed in Oly Viewer, as well as the out of camera (OOC) E5 jpeg. I could not see any difference ( I did couple more comparisons for myself ), so then I used only LR3 Oly OOC jpegs and Nikon NEF to jpeg.
    Olympus is here exactly what E5 offered in Superfine JPG out of camera (I also recorded orfs). To level the ground I processed Nikon raws (14 bit NEFs/d-lighting normal) in LR3 Adobe Preset , as the Nikon OOC JPGs are immediately worse than Olympus in resolution. Fortunately LR3 developer is pretty good and no work on color had to be done. But most of these NEFs required exposition corrections (highlights, black level). Olympus on the other hand nailed the expossition almost perfect all the time. Both E5 and D700 were in "P" and exposure was full frame/center weighed, focus with one central spot. VR/IS on. Both camera chose very similar EI values and ISO at/near the native 200 (full EXIF included, or click "i" for info).

    I will save you the trouble and give my appraisal immediately this time.
    Both combos cost near the same money, are very similar in many aspects (Oly a bit smaller) and deliver similar pictures near native ISO.
    Except Oly does it out of camera as JPEG, and on Nikon NEFs one needs to do work to get close. Close, because Oly OOC JPG resolution is a tad better than NEFs developed at the preset sharpening of 25. Again, I had the weird phenomenon of some Oly pics' sharp lines aliasing on the one monitor with the bigger pixels (EIZO), to smooth out at 100% on iMac 27 inch (smaller display pixels). Sharp people make sharp pictures. Sorry, Olympus people do so.
    PS.
    I could get Olympus jpegs sharpness working on NEFs with NIK Output Sharpener. But NIK on Oly raw/tiff again increased the distance.
    In one of the pictures NEF seemed cleaner in shadows, but more comparisons should be done on that.
    PSPS
    When I get the SHG glass will do the lest leg of comparisons.
    Last edited by nugat; 21st November 2010 at 11:17.

  31. #81
    Senior Member mathomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,148
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    I preferred the E5 results in every case, except the lake shot seemed a bit over-cool (I think the light changed on you). However, I don't know if that's an actual quality difference, or just a preference. They did seem more detailed, IMO.

  32. #82
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    519
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    I would keep always aperture doubled on D700 - in order to keep the same DOF.

  33. #83
    Senior Member Riley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Adelaide Hills South Australia
    Posts
    441
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    Quote Originally Posted by Pesitalia View Post
    I am a little bit confused here. I tought that EV values are independent from sensor format; in fact if I take a picture in a sunny day with a D700 and an E5 both set at 100 ISO, I will get 1/125sec at f/8 for both as long as the lenses have the same equivalent focal lenght or angle of view (let's say a Nikkor 50mm and a PL 25mm). The only difference would be in the DOF which will be about twice for the E3+25mm. In terms of light we will get same EV for both (likely EV=13).

    Form another perspective the amount of light hitting 4/3 sensor is going to be about 1/4 of the light hitting FF because 4/3 lens diaphram is set at 3,125mm diam. while FF diaphram diameter will be 6,25mm:

    FF exposed area thru the lens = 30,7 mm2
    4/3 exposed area thru the lens = 7,7 mm2.

    On the other end the 4/3 sensor has just about 1/4 the area of a FF sensor, thus the amount of light per unit area is the same, which justifies the equal settings for shooting under same conditions.

    Really, the only difference remains DOF.

    carlo
    i didnt name the thing the author did, why get so hooked up on names and definitions, i just dont see the point

    you happily pronounce ...."the amount of light hitting 4/3 sensor is going to be about 1/4 of the light hitting FF " then go on to include mush that shouldnt be considered

    well if it isnt 'about 1/4 of the light' exactly how much is it? and when you do know what the difference is then just how much is that difference in stops? And if you adjust your stops up or down from that they are then described as what? ............stops e/v

    thats what the tables about

    the total light available to the sensor regardless of lens
    it so happens that shooting when the same DoF the same circumstances arise, where the light is controlled by the aperture/shutter, if you need to look at it that way then fine but it makes it more complicated than it needs to be.

  34. #84
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,871
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: new pics from E5 vs D700

    Quote Originally Posted by nugat View Post
    I went for a walk today with both combos: D700+24-120VR and E5+12-60.
    You can download the direct comparisons here for private use only (the "D700 vs E5" album):

    http://gallery.me.com/nugat#gallery

    These are big jpegs: 6-11MB. At around 2:1 compression they are visually lossless, full size, no crops. Only the "Palace" I bothered to compare here and include Oly raw (ORF) to jpeg developed in Oly Viewer, as well as the out of camera (OOC) E5 jpeg. I could not see any difference ( I did couple more comparisons for myself ), so then I used only LR3 Oly OOC jpegs and Nikon NEF to jpeg.
    Olympus is here exactly what E5 offered in Superfine JPG out of camera (I also recorded orfs). To level the ground I processed Nikon raws (14 bit NEFs/d-lighting normal) in LR3 Adobe Preset , as the Nikon OOC JPGs are immediately worse than Olympus in resolution. Fortunately LR3 developer is pretty good and no work on color had to be done. But most of these NEFs required exposition corrections (highlights, black level). Olympus on the other hand nailed the expossition almost perfect all the time. Both E5 and D700 were in "P" and exposure was full frame/center weighed, focus with one central spot. VR/IS on. Both camera chose very similar EI values and ISO at/near the native 200 (full EXIF included, or click "i" for info).

    I will save you the trouble and give my appraisal immediately this time.
    Both combos cost near the same money, are very similar in many aspects (Oly a bit smaller) and deliver similar pictures near native ISO.
    Except Oly does it out of camera as JPEG, and on Nikon NEFs one needs to do work to get close. Close, because Oly OOC JPG resolution is a tad better than NEFs developed at the preset sharpening of 25. Again, I had the weird phenomenon of some Oly pics' sharp lines aliasing on the one monitor with the bigger pixels (EIZO), to smooth out at 100% on iMac 27 inch (smaller display pixels). Sharp people make sharp pictures. Sorry, Olympus people do so.
    PS.
    I could get Olympus jpegs sharpness working on NEFs with NIK Output Sharpener. But NIK on Oly raw/tiff again increased the distance.
    In one of the pictures NEF seemed cleaner in shadows, but more comparisons should be done on that.
    PSPS
    When I get the SHG glass will do the lest leg of comparisons.
    Thanks for that effort!

    While in general I like the E5 images far better, I have a question what happened to the images "lake" and "leaves" - in these 2 images the D700 shot is tack sharp and good resolution, the E5 shots are either not sharp or do not get the resolution of the D700.

    I think something went wrong while converting?

    Thanks

    Peter

  35. #85
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Warsaw, Poland
    Posts
    188
    Post Thanks / Like

    DOF humbug

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry_R View Post
    I would keep always aperture doubled on D700 - in order to keep the same DOF.
    Why should I keep the same DOF? Or to be exact the same CoC (circle of confusion) of the final viewed image ?
    DOF is conventional (19th century legacy CoC definition), particular (f#, print viewing distance and magnification), individual (eye resolution, esthetics).
    All lenses are sharp only focused on one plane. From there everything becomes progressively unsharp.
    Both D700 and E5 were focused on the same plane with one central AF spot.
    I let both cameras choose the picture parameters ("P"), presumably they did the best job for the final IQ. In fact D700 chose smaller aperture (bigger f#) most of the time.
    If I had bumped D700 aperture two stops, immediately "equivalence theorists" of both sides would find a fault with ISO speed and shutter.
    In the end what counts for me, is the overall picture quality as seen by my friends, family, myself and pundits--in that sequence.

  36. #86
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Warsaw, Poland
    Posts
    188
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: new pics from E5 vs D700

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    Thanks for that effort!

    While in general I like the E5 images far better, I have a question what happened to the images "lake" and "leaves" - in these 2 images the D700 shot is tack sharp and good resolution, the E5 shots are either not sharp or do not get the resolution of the D700.

    I think something went wrong while converting?

    Thanks

    Peter
    Are you watching them from the downloaded files?
    Do not pass judgement from the gallery viewer frames directly, there is something indeed strange how they are presented here. Some are converted by the gallery display software with less resolution (limited to 1280 anyway). Do not forget your browser algorithms. Only download and good jpeg viewer! Sorry for the size.

  37. #87
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    519
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DOF humbug

    Quote Originally Posted by nugat View Post
    Why should I keep the same DOF?
    Otherwise - we can discuss apart from bodies - what one prefers - less or more DOF, 43 sensor or FF sensor.

    Thread title is E5 vs D700, people discuss sharpness frequently. That was reason of my statement.

    Quote Originally Posted by nugat View Post
    In the end what counts for me, is the overall picture quality as seen by my friends, family, myself and pundits--in that sequence.
    Let more people share that approach!

  38. #88
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,871
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: new pics from E5 vs D700

    Quote Originally Posted by nugat View Post
    Are you watching them from the downloaded files?
    Do not pass judgement from the gallery viewer frames directly, there is something indeed strange how they are presented here. Some are converted by the gallery display software with less resolution (limited to 1280 anyway). Do not forget your browser algorithms. Only download and good jpeg viewer! Sorry for the size.
    I downloaded them and imported in LR3 - strange .....

  39. #89
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,871
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    Just found it is LR3.2 on my machine - sometimes pretty slow. So everything all right with your uploaded images.

    Thanks

    Peter

  40. #90
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: new pics from E5 vs D700

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    Thanks for that effort!

    While in general I like the E5 images far better,

    Peter
    HI Peter
    I think the E5 looks great . . . . . but you seem to have written off Sony on the basis of the quality of the A900 and the autofocus speed. . . . . . and now you're considering ditching the Nikon D700 in favour of the E5.

    I find the combination of these concepts to be completely odd - it doesn't seem to give any indication of your uses for the camera.

    I think all three cameras have real advantages:

    E5 - nice colour, fine zoom lenses, weather-sealing
    D700 - fast autofocus - grand high ISO
    A900 - great colour - splendid detail in 25mp files

    If you want the detail AND the autofocus and you like the Nikon colour (all of which you've said). Then what's wrong with the D3x?

    If you want the detail and you don't need the autofocus, then what's wrong with the A900?

    If you want the High ISO and you don't want the detail, then what's wrong with the D700

    If you want something smaller with decent quality, then the E5 isn't it either (you could think of Pentax or Sony, or even a Nikon D7000)

    The only reason for wanting the E5 (that I can see) is that you don't care about the detail or the high ISO or the autofocus . . but you do like the Olympus colour and the weathersealing.

    I'm very confused!

    Just this guy you know

  41. #91
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,871
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: new pics from E5 vs D700

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    HI Peter
    I think the E5 looks great . . . . . but you seem to have written off Sony on the basis of the quality of the A900 and the autofocus speed. . . . . . and now you're considering ditching the Nikon D700 in favour of the E5.

    I find the combination of these concepts to be completely odd - it doesn't seem to give any indication of your uses for the camera.

    I think all three cameras have real advantages:

    E5 - nice colour, fine zoom lenses, weather-sealing
    D700 - fast autofocus - grand high ISO
    A900 - great colour - splendid detail in 25mp files

    If you want the detail AND the autofocus and you like the Nikon colour (all of which you've said). Then what's wrong with the D3x?

    If you want the detail and you don't need the autofocus, then what's wrong with the A900?

    If you want the High ISO and you don't want the detail, then what's wrong with the D700

    If you want something smaller with decent quality, then the E5 isn't it either (you could think of Pentax or Sony, or even a Nikon D7000)

    The only reason for wanting the E5 (that I can see) is that you don't care about the detail or the high ISO or the autofocus . . but you do like the Olympus colour and the weathersealing.

    I'm very confused!
    I have some mixed feelings too. It all depends if I will go with just one system in the future (sell Hssselblad and stay maybe with Nikon - D4X as my high resolution camera) or if I keep the Hasselblad for high resolution and great color and go for a smaller solution with less resolution - could then be 43 or M43, but also some other D800 to come.

    I actually would have gone the D3X path, if this camera would not be at its price level and be already out there for 2 years, so replacement should show up pretty soon.

    Why did you not go for the E3 or now E5?

    Why did you not try Nikon D700 lately with new FW - I think colors are quite good?

    Why not make a profile in C1 Pro, where you can almost tweak any color from any cam?

    I must say I find the E5 very appealing, but I do not like the direction Olympus is currently moving with 43 - think they have much more emphasis on M43. And I would have expected the 16MP sensor from the GH2 in the E5 ... maybe too much wishes!
    Last edited by ptomsu; 22nd November 2010 at 03:19.

  42. #92
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: new pics from E5 vs D700

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    I have some mixed feelings too. It all depends if I will go with just one system in the future (sell Hssselblad and stay maybe with Nikon - D4X as my high resolution camera) or if I keep the Hasselblad for high resolution and great color and go for a smaller solution with less resolution - could then be 43 or M43, but also some other D800 to come.

    I actually would have gone the D3X path, if this camera would not be at its price level and be already out there for 2 years, so replacement should show up pretty soon.
    Fair enough - but what's wrong with the A900, which is half the size and half the price (and I'd argue a nice camera to use, with better lenses, less PP to do and just as good results - unless you want the high ISO).

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    Why did you not go for the E3 or now E5?
    I did have an E3, and I did like it, but it wasn't much smaller than the A900, the image quality was so much less good (really a different world).
    . . . . and because there is a Pentax K5 which fills the same niche but has:
    1. much smaller body (smaller even than the E1)
    2. much quieter shutter (quieter even than the E1)
    3. really excellent high ISO (colour at 6400 is completely useable)
    4. has a selection of excellent and very small prime lenses.
    5. has no obvious disadvantages when compared with the E5 - except for the lovely 12-60 lens.

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    Why did you not try Nikon D700 lately with new FW - I think colors are quite good?
    Because I don't want a FF 12mp camera - for me the point of FF is to be able to have a lot of resolution, not just a big camera.

    Because I prefer the Zeiss full frame lenses to the Nikon

    Because as far as I'm aware the colours haven't changed with the FW (you are the only person I've seen suggesting this). i recognise that my position on Nikon colour is subjective and personal rather than objective (although plenty of others seem to agree).

    But generally because these days the D700 has absolutely nothing I want.

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    Why not make a profile in C1 Pro, where you can almost tweak any color from any cam?
    Because I don't use C1 pro anymore, and because I've been been there with respect to Nikon cameras in the past, and I found that I needed to change colours with lots and lots of shots (especially in evening light). I never could manage a profile which dealt with all situations.

    Anyway, why buy a camera with the expectation of fiddling around with the colours when I already have one where I don't need to?

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    I must say I find the E5 very appealing, but I do not like the direction Olympus is currently moving with 43 - think they have much more emphasis on M43. And I would have expected the 16MP sensor from the GH2 in the E5 ... maybe too much wishes!
    Well, I think the E5 looks fine if you already have or want the Olympus pro zoom lenses - but they're really big, and the E5 body is big as well. For me the attraction of 4/3 was the possibility of getting something small and tough and weather-sealed - For example the Olympus 90-250 weights 3 kg, I know it isn't quite a like for like comparison, but the Pentax 60-250 weights 1kg. I'm not criticising the reasons for it - just that I don't want a lens that big - not even if it's attached to a 25mp full frame sensor, but especially not if it's attached to a 12mp 43 sensor.

    But as far as what you want is concerned, I would have thought that the A900 would do it - and with the expectation of Sony bringing out a >30mp body next year, it seems an even better reason to go in that direction.

    If you're going to keep you Hassleblad gear and get rid of the Nikon kit (for the sake of something smaller) - well, I'm not sure that the E5 will be that much smaller if you choose the pro-zooms.

    Just this guy you know

  43. #93
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,871
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    Jono,

    agree with most of what you say. But it does only help so far in my current position to decide to buy NOTHING and wait for what is coming from Sony, Nikon etc. in high resolution FF DSLRs. Whoever will have the more appealing system will be the king for me I am definitely not shy to switch another time

    Meanwhile I will stay with what I have and maybe add just a GH2 as soon as it becomes available.

  44. #94
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,929
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    Equipment is not the limitation once you get to cameras at the level of D700, E-5, A900, Hasselblad, etc, unless you have *extremely* specific needs for a particular attribute in image quality. Then the vanishingly tiny differences in what the equipment's potential is *might* be a reason to pick one over the other for specific purposes.

    - Jono's been showing some pix with the Pentax K5. They look superb.
    - Lots of work has been shown of the Nikon D700 ... superb.
    - My work with the E-5 is extremely finely resolved and beautiful ... even a couple of casual product shots I snapped hand-held with a macro lens at close quarter were STUNNINGLY detailed and finished, right out of the camera as medium resolution, medium quality JPEGs. I'm delighted with it.

    This is why I feel these sorts of "side by side" comparisons have such little real merit. What I see is a pile of relatively inexpertly made snapshots that are somehow supposed to characterize what one super-high-quality, multi-thousand-dollar, professional-grade camera does differently from another ... when the real hard edges to a particular piece of equipment's capabilities are so much finer grained than that.

    I've simplified already: I'm very happy with my lenses and my camera, and not really looking at anything else. I'm working on my photography now. ;-)

  45. #95
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post

    I've simplified already: I'm very happy with my lenses and my camera, and not really looking at anything else. I'm working on my photography now. ;-)
    HI Godfrey
    Not for a moment criticising your decision for the E5 - I absolutely understand the rationale, especially with respect to the lenses you love to use.

    I was questioning Peter trying to decide between an E5 and a D700, when what he seems to want is either:
    1. something small to complement his Hassleblad or
    2. something high resolution to replace his Hassleblad.

    I didn't see why either camera fitted either bill!

    but what do I know

    Just this guy you know

  46. #96
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: new pics from E5 vs D700

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    I have some mixed feelings too. It all depends if I will go with just one system in the future (sell Hssselblad and stay maybe with Nikon - D4X as my high resolution camera) or if I keep the Hasselblad for high resolution and great color and go for a smaller solution with less resolution - could then be 43 or M43, but also some other D800 to come.

    I actually would have gone the D3X path, if this camera would not be at its price level and be already out there for 2 years, so replacement should show up pretty soon.

    Why did you not go for the E3 or now E5?

    Why did you not try Nikon D700 lately with new FW - I think colors are quite good?

    Why not make a profile in C1 Pro, where you can almost tweak any color from any cam?

    I must say I find the E5 very appealing, but I do not like the direction Olympus is currently moving with 43 - think they have much more emphasis on M43. And I would have expected the 16MP sensor from the GH2 in the E5 ... maybe too much wishes!
    FWIW, the color advantage of the A900 isn't a matter of color profiling. Sony, in general, uses a less transparent color filter than most other DSLR makers, so, while this can cause more noise at higher ISO, it provides less metameric failure and better color separation. Essentially, this results in better resolution in greens and/or skin tones (ie: less mushy) than some DSLR brands. Because of this, the Sonys are well suited for landscape and portraiture.

  47. #97
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,604
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: new pics from E5 vs D700

    Quote Originally Posted by douglasf13 View Post
    Sony, in general, uses a less transparent color filter than most other DSLR makers, so, while this can cause more noise at higher ISO, it provides less metameric failure and better color separation.
    I am genuinely interested to know more details about this. Could you help?

  48. #98
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,929
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    ... I didn't see why either camera fitted either bill! ...
    And I don't know why he wants to replace his Hasselblad at all.

    BTW ... I loved shooting with my Hasselblads (500C/M and 903SWC). If there hadn't been these digital cameras that did what I wanted better, I would have just kept on doing so. I was similarly quite happy with my Nikon F3/T and Nikkor AI-S lens kit, had them for almost 20 years.

    ... Boy, that all seems like an eternity ago.

  49. #99
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: new pics from E5 vs D700

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    I am genuinely interested to know more details about this. Could you help?
    Sure. It's a long, winding road, and I've really only scratched the surface. Essentially, though, most DSLR makers have been making their CFA filters more transparent over time, in order for more light to reach the sensor, and this requires less amplification gain. Thus, they sacrifice low ISO color performance for better high ISO. This is one of the reasons why Sony cameras in the past have had slight high ISO disadvantages when compared to cameras of other makes that have Sony sensors. Canon and Sony seem to be on the opposite of the end of the spectrum in this regard, with other makes falling somewhere in between (generally.)

    I've probably read every single post that Iliah Borg has posted on dpreview over the last 3 years, as he is an authority on this. He is responsible for RPP's color transforms, and has early access to all cameras for testing, so you may want to start digging through some of his posts:

    http://www.dpreview.com/members/4752...orums/Messages

    here are a few other various links:
    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...5&changemode=1

    http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/847088/2#7910053

    http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/847088/2#7911913

    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...+a900+d2x&qf=m

    "Hardloaf" on these forums can explain in more detail than me, as he is an expert in the field.

  50. #100
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: new pics from E5 vs D700

    Quote Originally Posted by douglasf13 View Post
    FWIW, the color advantage of the A900 isn't a matter of color profiling. Sony, in general, uses a less transparent color filter than most other DSLR makers, so, while this can cause more noise at higher ISO, it provides less metameric failure and better color separation. Essentially, this results in better resolution in greens and/or skin tones (ie: less mushy) than some DSLR brands. Because of this, the Sonys are well suited for landscape and portraiture.
    Thank you Douglas
    It wasn't a battle I felt fit to fight . .. hence the personal preference plea . . . (but I don't really believe it )

    Just this guy you know

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •