EP3 vs Nex7

[Oly5050]

No one would argue that it is the photographer that makes a difference to the quality of the photo. The point here is that with the same photographer, which system would allow him/her to take better photos. To me, there is no doubt that FF is better than APS-C which is better than m43. I have owned all three and still have a D700 as well as an E-P3. I have been trying hard to ditch my FF system and just have the m43. Somehow, the quality is still not there. And so if I need quality, I take out my D700. If I need portability, I bring out the E-P3.

Thank you. Finally there is someone with personal experience. In wat way are the 2 systems different in terms of IQ? how are the photos coming out from the d700 better than the ep3? Colours? Sharpness? Noise? Dynamic range? Are u shooting in RAW for d700 n jpegs for EP3?

 

[Oly5050]

That's easy to get into. This is, after all, a hobby. I think you'll find this in any hobby- Audio, Photog, the list goes on.

For most people (myself included), a lot more gains are possible through improving composition and (especially) pp skills. Then there is strobing which is a whole other world to think about...

As Thom Hogan writes, he takes photos with at least 5 different camera makers (including the Pen, and some big-ass Nikons). He was referring to making them all consistent in terms of colour, but be it detail, DR, noise, etc, I personally can't tell which of his photos were taken using which camera.

His words: "Small footnote: I shoot with cameras from at least five camera makers. Ever notice that you can tell which camera I used from what I post? No, didn't think so. I have my own values when it comes to color, and I process to those, not something dictated to me by a camera manufacturer."

http://www.bythom.com/2011%20Nikon%20News.htm

Interesting. This guy writes a lot. Thanks for the link. He sounds objective and he does not ever say that his big ass cameras produce better images. He just says all of them are good enough. In fact he says that EP3 AF is faster than his D3s n he uses the EP3 far more than his nikon DSLR.

 

[george671]

I own P/S...M4/3...Nikon DX...Canon FF...Medium format (6X9...6X12)...several 4X5's (still doing archivial work on occasion).....There is no one "best" camera or system.....I tend to agree with Oly5050, show me two real world pics (one from say a 5D mk2, and another from a Oly ep3 of the same subject and point out the differences)...I say we are chasing a bunch of ghosts.....It really doesn't matter, the best camera is the one in your hand at the moment....Now I happen to like my old Fuji S3 pro's for their emulation of fuji film (read perfect skin tone!)...and their dynamic range is still very hard to beat, but I also think my Oly pens make the best JPG right out of the camera...not to mention that they are considerably smaller and lighter.....Now the 5D shines when it come to having a very bright view finder and the ability to make my 14mm f2.8 a truly wide lense....And If I truly am worried about archival permanance and also a large file, then I just shoot some film in one of my MF cams or I run a few sheets through my Toyo 45 or my Ebony wide (45)...I even love running 35mm film on occasion as its very easy to get it scanned and digitized as well.....At least I know its will still be around (in print form 100 years from now)....

Cheers

 

[iguoh]

Thank you. Finally there is someone with personal experience. In wat way are the 2 systems different in terms of IQ? how are the photos coming out from the d700 better than the ep3? Colours? Sharpness? Noise? Dynamic range? Are u shooting in RAW for d700 n jpegs for EP3?

Haha... I don't know how to answer your question! I have never done an A/B type of test and even if I wanted to, I wouldn't know how to do a fair one. The lenses are different. All I know is if I use my D700, there are usually far fewer bad photos - be it due to exposure, focusing, dynamic range, whatever, I don't get technical about these things, I just see if the photos look nice to me.

To be fair though, I would say that in good lighting, say outdoors, they come much closer in the sense that there are also few "bad" photos if I use my E-P3. Indoors, it is a different story. I get much better results with the D700. As to raw or jpeg, I used to take jpeg only but am now starting to use raw. To me, be it raw or jepg, in general, the D700 is still better.

And so, you can say my comparison is not very scientific or objective. They are just my personal experience. I look forward to the day where I no longer need my D700. I hate to lug it around!

 

[NazgulKing]

Interesting. This guy writes a lot. Thanks for the link. He sounds objective and he does not ever say that his big ass cameras produce better images. He just says all of them are good enough. In fact he says that EP3 AF is faster than his D3s n he uses the EP3 far more than his nikon DSLR.

The genuinely old and experienced professional photographers have been in the business so long changing camera brands at least once that brand loyalty isn't such a big thing to them. People like Kirk Tuck (www.visualsciencelab.blogspot.com) who use a myriad of cameras, including Hasselblads, write pretty well actually, compared to some of the newbies who set up website and earn a tonne of website hits by saying the things people like to hear.

 

[innerzen]

dun bluff le u are a good photographer, dun tell me u never touch up the abv pic
i does own a m4/3 ,an apsc and a ff
i can tell the differences, between them.
dun show off and tell anyone there no difference between the three just because u are good at post processing yr shot

Oh Ya, friend, I din't bluff, maybe it is just that you know camera more and understand photography less.

 

[edutilos-]

dun bluff le u are a good photographer, dun tell me u never touch up the abv pic
i does own a m4/3 ,an apsc and a ff
i can tell the differences, between them.
dun show off and tell anyone there no difference between the three just because u are good at post processing yr shot

Wa, FF camera don't need to touch up picture to look good but M4/3 need to touch up picture to look good? Web size can tell, your eye super duper powerful...

Frankly speaking, picture good, touch up is like adding sauce to a well cooked steak. Picture bad, you add chilli sauce, kaya, mee rebus zhap to overcooked steak, still remains as overcooked, not-properly-done steak. :bsmilie:

I can tell the difference in thinking between you and me here... But I'm not going to show it off! :bsmilie:

 

[Anthony Lee]

I don't see any necessity for such a thread except to find out which system would suit each individual better based on each set of individual preferences. However, there are tons of materials available if one just google and most of such technical materials draw the same conclusion that given all things being equal, the larger sensor will always be better. But the fact remains also that most will not be able to tell the differences based on web size images or even up to certain print sizes. So, in all such technical arguments, facts and figures must be accompanied, otherwise, it's just you own subjective opinion.

 

[Oly5050]

Haha... I don't know how to answer your question! I have never done an A/B type of test and even if I wanted to, I wouldn't know how to do a fair one. The lenses are different. All I know is if I use my D700, there are usually far fewer bad photos - be it due to exposure, focusing, dynamic range, whatever, I don't get technical about these things, I just see if the photos look nice to me.

To be fair though, I would say that in good lighting, say outdoors, they come much closer in the sense that there are also few "bad" photos if I use my E-P3. Indoors, it is a different story. I get much better results with the D700. As to raw or jpeg, I used to take jpeg only but am now starting to use raw. To me, be it raw or jepg, in general, the D700 is still better.

And so, you can say my comparison is not very scientific or objective. They are just my personal experience. I look forward to the day where I no longer need my D700. I hate to lug it around!

Thanks! Good enough for me. Its your real world experience and I respect that.

 

[Oly5050]

The genuinely old and experienced professional photographers have been in the business so long changing camera brands at least once that brand loyalty isn't such a big thing to them. People like Kirk Tuck (www.visualsciencelab.blogspot.com) who use a myriad of cameras, including Hasselblads, write pretty well actually, compared to some of the newbies who set up website and earn a tonne of website hits by saying the things people like to hear.

Nice link. He writes well. And I like the way he talks. He is more into photography then in gear talk like "bigger sensor is always better" kind of talk. If he says there is hardly any difference, I really dun see why people love the take the marketing talk and perpetuate it like bible truth. Like he said, PENs, Canon PnS, etc, all can be used to take good photos for professional. Also, he says something interesting, for product shoots, the increased DOF is a blessing. Dunno why people love ultra-thin DOF.....man, its a recipe for out of focus shots. Thin DOF is nice, but not too thin. Thank you.

So back to the TS question, comparing EP3 and NEX7, is not comparing apples to oranges. It is a valid comparison because you are deciding between which to buy. How more practical and relevant can that be? Its normal to say good and bad things about each camera, so that at the end of the day, you can decide. If we do not compare, how else do we make a decision. So its a good discussion and everybody benefits so long as the opinion is backed up by personal experience or data, and not just mouthing off what is read or heard from the internet or from the marketing people. Like Kirk says....see who the messenger is when you hear the message. For FF or APS camera sellers, they want you to believe this concept - bigger is better, so that you will buy.

 

[eow]

Hi guys does it really irritate u folk when I just merely said what I had personally owned and had hand on.

 

[loneWolff]

Hi guys does it really irritate u folk when I just merely said what I had personally owned and had hand on.

Ignorance is bliss

 

[JW73]

I tried the NEX body many times at the sony showroom. Definately can't work for me. I feel they are just trying to make a small body and brag on it but forgot the lens portion.There is no way at this moment to have a small zoom lens to accomadate a large sensor like the APS-C. The only hope is to use fixed lens to keep the form factor nice and small. Clean image can be also achieve by using brighter lens instead of high iso. But as many has said, a good photo i not all about clean image.

 

[JW73]

Oh Ya, friend, I din't bluff, maybe it is just that you know camera more and understand photography less.[/QUOTE
Good one...LOL...it's easy to forget photography is about play with light...instead of large or small sensor

 

[Oly5050]

dun bluff le u are a good photographer, dun tell me u never touch up the abv pic
i does own a m4/3 ,an apsc and a ff
i can tell the differences, between them.
dun show off and tell anyone there no difference between the three just because u are good at post processing yr shot

Hi guys does it really irritate u folk when I just merely said what I had personally owned and had hand on.

Haha...not me...but maybe some people might be by your not bothering to type your posts properly and in decent english.

But seriously, are you saying that with PP you can make a crap 4/3 sensor image nearly as good as a ff image???

 

[Oly5050]

No one would argue that it is the photographer that makes a difference to the quality of the photo. The point here is that with the same photographer, which system would allow him/her to take better photos. To me, there is no doubt that FF is better than APS-C which is better than m43. I have owned all three and still have a D700 as well as an E-P3. I have been trying hard to ditch my FF system and just have the m43. Somehow, the quality is still not there. And so if I need quality, I take out my D700. If I need portability, I bring out the E-P3.

The issue is that all of us are proficient in different systems....for eg, I know how to use my camera system to get the results I want because of me taking many photos and seeing the results, and improving as time goes. Put me in another system, eg. APS-C or a FF system, there will be a learning curve. It might take me many years, maybe, for me to be as good on the FF system as I am on the 4/3 or m4/3 system.

In addition, I definately will not shoot exactly the same way when I am on FF compared to other systems. So in my mind, the best way to do a comparison is not with the same person...but rather, taking two persons who own and are very proficient in their art and with their equipment, take the same type of photo and do that comparison. I think that, to me, is the real comparison. The real test of the system.

This kind of comparison, is pretty hard to do. I have been on trips where there are other photographers who shoot with APS-C or even FF. When I ask them to share their photos, they always give the 1MB scaled down versions and they never seem to share the full res versions. I, on the other hand, always pass the full res versions. In the occasional times when I get a full res versions and I pixel peep....because of all this talk about these cameras having better IQ, I honestly dun see any significant difference in IQ in the shots that will convince me to make the 5-6K jump to go into those systems.

 

[cannedpineapples]

Nice link. He writes well. And I like the way he talks. He is more into photography then in gear talk like "bigger sensor is always better" kind of talk. If he says there is hardly any difference, I really dun see why people love the take the marketing talk and perpetuate it like bible truth. Like he said, PENs, Canon PnS, etc, all can be used to take good photos for professional. Also, he says something interesting, for product shoots, the increased DOF is a blessing. Dunno why people love ultra-thin DOF.....man, its a recipe for out of focus shots. Thin DOF is nice, but not too thin. Thank you.

So back to the TS question, comparing EP3 and NEX7, is not comparing apples to oranges. It is a valid comparison because you are deciding between which to buy. How more practical and relevant can that be? Its normal to say good and bad things about each camera, so that at the end of the day, you can decide. If we do not compare, how else do we make a decision. So its a good discussion and everybody benefits so long as the opinion is backed up by personal experience or data, and not just mouthing off what is read or heard from the internet or from the marketing people. Like Kirk says....see who the messenger is when you hear the message. For FF or APS camera sellers, they want you to believe this concept - bigger is better, so that you will buy.

Talking about DOF, I read in his book that this is exactly why Bryan Peterson carries an LX3 around- for macro. The smaller sensor is great for additional DOF and the camera can focus up to 1cm.

(Wait what? An award-winning pro using a point and shoot? Heh. Go read his book- "Understanding Close Up Photography", and you'll see it's true.)

 

[edutilos-]

Talking about DOF, I read in his book that this is exactly why Bryan Peterson carries an LX3 around- for macro. The smaller sensor is great for additional DOF and the camera can focus up to 1cm.

(Wait what? An award-winning pro using a point and shoot? Heh. Go read his book- "Understanding Close Up Photography", and you'll see it's true.)

I think some people look at the picture already will say he PP damn long, like sit in front of computer PP for 24 days and nights one... :sticktong

 

[pinholecam]

There is of course DPR and they do RAW comparisons as well.

From ImagingResource :
JPG o/p
ISO200
EP3 - http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/EP3/FULLRES/EP3hSLI00200NR2D.HTM
NEX5n - http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/NEX5N/FULLRES/NEX5NhSLI00200_NR_STD_D.HTM

The NEX does have ISO100 over the base ISO200 of EP3.
But at ISO200, it does seem pretty comparable with EP3 with a bit of the upper hand.
However the NEX is a 16mp file and should really be down sampled to a 12mp file like the EP3 (or EP3 up scaled to match NEX).




ISO800
EP3 - http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/EP3/FULLRES/EP3hSLI00800NR2D.HTM
NEX5n - http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/NEX5N/FULLRES/NEX5NhSLI00800_NR_STD_D.HTM

NEX starts to pull away in detail, even with the larger file.


ISO1600
EP3 - http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/EP3/FULLRES/EP3hSLI01600NR2D.HTM
NEX5n - http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/NEX5N/FULLRES/NEX5NhSLI01600_NR_STD_D.HTM

By ISO1600, the colored cloths are very much smeared on the EP3 samples.
The NEX retains very good detail.

Those interested can explore more sample shots on the IR comparometer :
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM



Does it mean anything on prints, or viewing?
>> All depends on print and viewing size.
I certainly don't print A3, A2, A1 regularly. Perhaps twice a year.
On such sizes, viewing distance is further, and prints I made with my 6mp DSLR has been as satisfactory as a picture on the wall as the one by a 14mp and 16mp camera.
I certainly don't have a TV monitor that can display a photo at 4036x2036 (It would be the size of a wall??).
So in many cases, large amounts of MP don't matter much.
But when I press the 1:1 button and see the difference, of course a bit 'bua song'


Does it mean current APS-C is better?
>> Yes, for detail retention at higher ISO.
I like the oly colors more though (one of the few reasons I did not get a NEX). But that is tweakable with slight magenta bias in WB or PP.

Does it mean APS-C camera is better?
>> Certainly not.
The best camera is the one the photographer has when he/she needs it.
The best camera is the one that he knows how best to work with (warts and all)


Whether ISO800 or 1600 is important or not. Depends on the individual.
Eg. For many events (esp. weddings) its a difference between keeping the ambient (while the subject is lit with flash) or just having a flash lit shot.
Indoors, ISO800 and 1600 is common enough, both with and w/o flash.

Some folks shoot mostly studio; outdoors in good light; with a tripod.
To them high iso is not relevant in most cases.

Good photos can come from any camera. The camera is just a tool.
A painter can paint using a '01' ; '00'. '000' brush or opt for an air brush.
He may even just splash paint with a bucket onto the canvas.
The camera is just like the brush, air-brush, or bucket, just a tool the photographer chooses as he/she sees fit.
The photographer/artist is the one that makes the picture.


In not too challenging indoor lighting, for the same FOV, my GF1 can shoot at f1.7 with a 35mm DOF equivalent to f3.4.
Better DOF to resist focus error due to slight shifts in the subjects.
A FF camera shooting in the same condition at f1.7 would have very shallow DOF, and is easily OOF with the slightest shifting of the subject or even photographer swaying.
If the FF camera stops down to f3.4 to get the same DOF, it needs to increase ISO accordingly.
So the lines are never too clear in many cases.

 

[tsammyc]

I think that Pinholecam has made the technical points that most of us with multiple systems (I have Polaroid, Canon HV20, S95, Nex C3, Pentax K5) notice about our systems and we use the appropriate one for the occasion.

If you have average skill and want M43 to perform decently indoors and not get blur or grainy shots of moving objects, its not impossible, but to improve your odds, better get a G3 and a Summilux 1.4