{"id":232,"date":"2012-01-24T17:10:44","date_gmt":"2012-01-24T22:10:44","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/admiringlight.com\/blog\/?p=232"},"modified":"2024-09-05T21:58:04","modified_gmt":"2024-09-06T02:58:04","slug":"micro-43-vs-a-full-frame-legend","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/admiringlight.com\/blog\/micro-43-vs-a-full-frame-legend\/","title":{"rendered":"Micro 4\/3 vs a Full Frame Legend"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Sensor Shootout: Panasonic GH2 vs Panasonic GX1 vs Canon 1Ds Mark II<\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

As many of you are aware by now, I have recently made the switch from Canon DSLRs to the micro 4\/3 system.  I’ll all the details for another post, but it was primarily to reduce size and weight. So over the last year or so have sold almost all my DLSR equipment and transitioned entirely to Micro 4\/3, namely the Panasonic GH2 and GX1.  These cameras are at the top of the Micro 4\/3 format of mirrorless Compact System Cameras and are large sensor interchangeable lens cameras that can provide very high image quality in a very small package.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I had been extremely pleased with the image quality out of my new cameras, and surprised that in print I essentially can’t tell them apart from my old Canon files.  So, before the very last of my DSLR gear goes away in the next week or so, I decided to set up a little test to see in reality how they perform vs what I was shooting.  So I have pitted my little Micro 4\/3 cameras against a legend in the camera world: The Canon 1Ds Mark II.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Full Frame Legend<\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The Canon 1Ds Mark II was the second professional grade full-frame (35mm size) camera released by Canon.  When it was released, people were astounded by its extremely high resolution and amazing image quality.  When it was released, it retailed for $8,000 US.   It is certainly not a new camera, having been released way back in 2004.  Obviously, modern full frame cameras like the Canon 5D Mark II, Nikon D700 and upcoming Canon 1D X and Nikon D4 will outperform this body.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, I view it as a benchmark camera for a few reasons.  First, when it was released, the 16.7MP resolution was so far above the competition that it remained Canon’s flagship until 2007.  Second, throughout the mid and later 2000s, this camera was used for a HUGE amount of professional work, from landscapes to fashion.   The 1Ds II has seen photos published in the best photo magazines and has been used for gallery exhibitions by a large contingent of photographers.  Finally, while current full frame cameras are better, it is easily safe to say that the image quality out of this beast is good enough for professional use and making large prints (I have personally made 40×30″ prints from this camera that look outstanding).  If many of the best fine art and landscape photographers were able to use this camera for years, it should be good enough for the vast majority of photographers.  In fact, the camera has an almost legendary status in the photographic community and many serious hobbyists and professionals alike still rely on this camera for their best work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Contenders:<\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/a>
GH2 with 25\/1.4 – 663g<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/a>
GX1 with 25\/1.4 – 536g<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/a>
1Ds Mark II with 50\/1.4 – 2,259g<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Now, before the flaming comes on in the comments, a few observations:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. I know this test is not indicative of ALL shooting conditions.  I tried to set it up so that it would give an indication of performance in a variety of conditions, but obviously there’s a limit to this.  I do not have the time or inclination to re-run this test four or five more times under additional circumstances.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. My conclusion is about image quality, not any of the other advantages here…I know full frame is capable of shallower depth of field and micro 4\/3 is far more portable.  DSLRs have better continuous autofocus (and Micro 4\/3 has more accurate and faster single shot autofocus)…that’s not the point of this…mostly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3. Make your own conclusions.  I’ll present my thoughts on the data, but everything is here for you to look at.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Setup<\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

To best test these cameras in a situation that I would best see their strengths and weaknesses, I had to decide on a setup.  I chose to do a still life, lit by window light.  I had an extremely overcast day, which ensured that the light would stay constant outside during the test, and the directional and somewhat dim light would ensure a high dynamic range would be present in the captured area, but I didn’t want harsh shadows.  Indeed, when processing the RAW files, the dynamic range of the scene exceeded the available data for all three cameras, which was achieved by shadowing some areas and introducing glass and plastic surfaces which caused large areas of highlights to examine.   I also made sure to include some blue items, some red items and I put my color checker chart to both provide a common white balance target and to see if any obvious color casts would be present.  I didn’t expect much variance in color, however, as you’ll see next.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a>
The scene captured by each camera. Focus on the cookie in the middle<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

To put all cameras in a situation to succeed, all three cameras were processed using custom RAW profiles generated specifically for each individual camera, using the Color Checker Passport and Lightroom.  In this way, each camera’s color should be very close to each other, or as close as they can be given each sensor’s performance.  Since I use these for all my shooting, I didn’t have to do anything special here.  Each camera’s shots were white balanced in Lightroom using the same square of the color chart, and all develop settings were identical.  After RAW import, I recovered as much data as I could from each file, which included recovering shadows until they did not clip any more, (which was, using Lightroom 4 beta, +24 blacks on the GH2 and GX1 and +22 blacks on the 1Ds II).  I also recovered as much highlight data as could be done using the Whites slider (-100).  I used the automatic chromatic aberration removal in LR 4 beta for all shots (though neither lens has a significant amount of CA).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Each camera was set securely in the same spot, with each shutter fired using the 2 second timer, with mirror lockup on the 1Ds II.  I used the camera’s internal meter at -0.3 EV.  While this yielded images extremely close to each other, the GX1 shots metered very slightly darker than the GH2, and the 1Ds II metered ever so slightly lighter than the GH2.  There ended up being about a 1\/3 stop difference between the GX1 and 1Ds II shots, with the GH2 sitting 1\/6 stop between them.  Keep note of this, but ultimately, I don’t think it has much of an impact on the results.  I didn’t do a straight conversion of shutter speed, f\/stop and ISO as the rated ISO is different between different digital cameras, and since natural light was used, I needed the cameras to compensate for possible changes in outdoor light.  While the outdoor light was consistent, I couldn’t guarantee against minor fluctuations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I used the Panasonic Leica 25mm f\/1.4 lens at f\/5.6 on the GH2 and GX1, and I used the Sigma 50mm f\/1.4 lens at f\/11 on the 1Ds II.  These apertures were chosen as they provide for adequate depth of field to evaluate more of the scene, and they yield identical depth of field for each shot.  Since the sensor is smaller, with an angle of view crop factor of 2 compared to the 1Ds II, I needed to close down two stops on the 50mm lens to achieve the same depth of field.  This is because I was shooting with double the focal length at the same distance.  (Look up a depth of field calculator if you are confused).    Also, since each camera is roughly 16 megapixels, these apertures have the same effect from diffraction, so should be an apples to apples comparison.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Next: The test…
<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

The Test<\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Up first I take a look at straight up performance.  Click on each image to bring up the full size comparison.  Each image features three 100% pixel crops at one ISO.  One of the focus point (the fruit cookie in the center), one of the gray patches on the color chart (to evaluate mid-tone noise) and one area of the bottle of cranberry juice, to show how the cameras deal with high saturation color in the reds (which is often a problem for digital cameras) as well as deep shadow and deep single color shadow noise performance.  This third crop is kind of a torture test for digital.  Again, these crops are with identical RAW processing for all images:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a>
Camera Base ISO – Click to Enlarge<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/a>
ISO 640 – Click to Enlarge<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/a>
ISO 1600 – Click to Enlarge<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/a>
ISO 3200 – Click to Enlarge<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

My Thoughts:<\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Looking at the above crops, let’s start with base ISO (ISO 160 on the GH2 and GX1, ISO 100 on the 1Ds II).  The Canon appears to have slightly better dynamic range in this shot, as evidenced by the increased shadow detail on the raisin in the cookie.  Highlight detail appears to be quite similar.  All three cameras hit saturation limits on the highlight of the red bottle, but all three also rolled off into this highlight area gracefully.  The 1Ds II provides a slightly cleaner file at base ISO, with the gray squares showing no visible noise, while the GH2 and GHx1 have very slight fine-grained noise in these areas (not that you’d see it on a print).  However, one interesting thing is that the Micro 4\/3 cameras in this test resolve more detail.  The cookie crop shows more fine detail on both the GH2 and Gx1 shots, while there is finer definition on the color checker chart lines as well.  The Leica 25mm also appears to render a little more contrast in the image, but that is likely due to lens design more than the camera.  Both lenses should be extremely sharp in this range, so it is likely that the higher visible resolution in this test is a result of a lighter anti-aliasing filter on the Panasonic bodies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At higher ISO, the GH2 and GX1 maintain their detail lead, and the 1Ds II retains it’s noise control advantage.  Note that at ISO 1600 and ISo 3200, the GH2 starts to exhibit a color shift towards green.  This was one of the weaknesses of the GH2 at high ISO, and it is nice to see that the GX1 not only controls noise ever so slightly better, but color remains essentially perfect even at high ISO.  The 1Ds II’s noise profile is finer grained than either of the two Panasonic bodies.  With similar developing, it appears to my eye that the 1Ds II has about about a one stop advantage at ISO 1600 to ISO 3200.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But wait a second… <\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

But wait a second… <\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

So, the 1Ds II is about a stop better at high ISO….or is it?  I started thinking…in pure noise performance, yes, it is.  However, I’m not concerned with the technical performance of something…I’m concerned about the final print, or final image on screen.   It’ s like when you have a car that has a 600 hp engine vs one that has a 480 hp engine.  Yes, one has a more powerful engine, but what if the 480hp car weighs 20% less?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This was my thinking, and the detail advantage of the Micro 4\/3 bodies is the lower weight of the car.  That is, if I can use noise reduction techniques and still get a file with the exact same amount of detail, then that should be the real comparison.  So, I kept the 1Ds II files the same, and increased luminance noise reduction in Lightroom until I achieved what to my eye was identical levels of detail between the three cameras.  This ended up being at around a level of 20-40 depending on the ISO.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The following are the crops with noise reduction tweaked to yield a similar final level of fine detail (only showing base ISO and 1600 and higher):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a>
Camera Base ISO, with noise reduction – Click to Enlarge<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/a>
ISO 1600 with noise reduction – Click to Enlarge<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/a>
ISO 3200 with noise reduction – Click to Enlarge<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

And for fun, I also shot one of the 1Ds II shots at ISO 3200, underexposed by a stop and then pushed in post by a stop to yield effective ISO 6400:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a>
ISO 6400 with noise reduction – Click to Enlarge<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

My thoughts:<\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Wow – that’s interesting!  At base ISO, the light noise reduction has eliminated the fine grain noise present in the Micro 4\/3 shots, while leaving detail essentially untouched.  At least, to my eyes, it still seems like the GH2 and GX1 are resolving more fine detail than the 1Ds II, with identical noise performance.  The 1Ds II still does obviously retain a dynamic range lead.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At ISO 1600, the GH2 and GX1 are again able to match or beat the 1Ds II in resolution, and noise performance looks essentially identical here.  The GH2 is falling a little off the pace in the red shadow crop, where a little bit of artifacting has crept in.  The GX1 stays solid here, though.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At ISO 3200, the GH2’s color shift is visible, and it’s shadow detail has deteriorated a little more, but it’s right with the others in the mid-tones and highlights, as well as in resolution.  With the noise reduction here, there is no longer a detail advantage to the Micro 4\/3 bodies, but they look equal to the 1Ds II.  Overall, the GX1 and 1Ds II crops look extremely similar to my eyes, with the GX1 maybe having a little less noise with this processing in the midtones and highlights, while the 1Ds II has a tiny bit cleaner look in the red shadows.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At ISO 6400, the GH2’s color shift becomes rather extreme, and it is exhibiting some pattern noise in the red shadows.  The GX1’s noise profile is very close to the 1Ds II, but the 1Ds II is holding a very slim advantage in the appearance of the noise. It is more film like here, while the GX1’s looks more digital.  This is especially noticeable in the shadows. Still, the difference would likely be extremely difficult to notice except in large prints.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a>
Left and Right edge detail – Base ISO<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Just a side note with the image above, which are crops taken from the left and right sides of the image at base ISO…you can see that color response in the blues and purples and greens is essentially identical here.  The GH2 does still hold on to a slight resolution advantage at the edges here (though this could possibly be due to the lens).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion:<\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Well, that was interesting.  You can make up your own mind here, but I see a few key points:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  • The GH2 and GX1 hold a real world resolution advantage over the 1Ds Mark II despite the similar megapixel count, likely due to a lighter anti-aliasing filter.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • The 1Ds Mark II has better dynamic range than the Micro 4\/3 cameras, which is visible as extra shadow detail.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • The 1Ds II has about one stop better noise control in pure sensor performance.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Due to the resolution advantage, that one stop advantage can be negated up through ISO 3200 by proper RAW noise reduction, yielding similar noise performance and similar or better detail for the GH2 and GX1<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • In my eyes, color performance is essentially identical. \u00a0There may be a difference, but I’ll be darned if I can see one with my eyes.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

    So, in my mind, for base ISO work, the GH2 and GX1 should be able to give you shots of similar quality to the legendary 1Ds Mark II, provided you don’t need the 1Ds II’s extra dynamic range.  Even at high ISO, these tiny cameras are able to hang in there with the 1Ds II all the way through to ISO 3200, with the GX1 able to come extremely close even at ISO 6400.  It’s an exciting time when little mirrorless cameras can achieve image quality at this level.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Sensor Shootout: Panasonic GH2 vs Panasonic GX1 vs Canon 1Ds Mark II As many of you are aware by now, I have recently made the switch from Canon DSLRs to the micro 4\/3 system.  I’ll all the details for another post, but it was primarily to reduce size and weight. So over the last year […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":234,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"cybocfi_hide_featured_image":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"enabled":false},"version":2},"_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[22],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-232","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-shop"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/admiringlight.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/01\/test_setup.jpg","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p28RGq-3K","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/admiringlight.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/232","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/admiringlight.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/admiringlight.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/admiringlight.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/admiringlight.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=232"}],"version-history":[{"count":21,"href":"https:\/\/admiringlight.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/232\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12744,"href":"https:\/\/admiringlight.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/232\/revisions\/12744"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/admiringlight.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/234"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/admiringlight.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=232"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/admiringlight.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=232"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/admiringlight.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=232"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}