5d or GH3

[Samuel H]

In the real world nobody is seeing this. The Canon 5D Mk3 and the Nikon D800 are NOT out-resolving the GH2/GH3 when shooting video, while the GH2/GH3 are sometimes out-resolving the Full Frame sensor cameras.
In theory if the Full Frame sensor cameras were built the same way as the m4/3 cameras, and the Full Frame lenses were built to the same resolution standards as the m4/3 lenses, it would be no contest, the Full Frame would have a huge advantage.

Yeah, I'm surprised you made that claim, Samuel. It's clearly not the case.

Ok, let me refine my statement...

EVERYTHING ELSE EQUAL, with a bigger sensor and stopping down your lenses, you'll get a much sharper image with similar DoF.
Definitely if you're compensating that by taking out one stop of ND, but also true if you don't have any more NDs to take out and you increase ISO instead.
All my lenses are a lot sharper on FF than on APS-C, specially in the corners: http://www.similaar.com/foto/lenstestsff/lenstestsff.html


Of course, a well processed 1/3" image will be a lot sharper than a crappily processed FF image. And of course "everything else" is never "equal".

 

[JasonMillard81]

Agreed but if all things are equal the only variables are:

camera and lens choices.

Gh3 or 5d3 if raw workflow wasn't an issue it'd be an easy answer. Now to throw a monkey wrench is the impending G6. (Bmpcc doesn't do stills I need a hybrid)

 

[Gary Huff]

But what you said was completely mis-representing the reality of the situation. You can't say that, in some alternate reality where we could get Full Frame and m4/3 right off the sensor and into a Raw file format, that the FF is sharper (and the 5D still isn't because of line skipping). The way you phrased it clearly gave the indication that you though the Canon 5D or Nikon D800 gave a more resolute image than a m4/3 camera (GH2, BMCC, ect.)

That is not the case. You weren't talking about sensors themselves, you were responding to whether or not a 5D or GH3 is better.

 

[Samuel H]

Sorry if it was not clear, then.

The message, in any case, is: don't be worried that a bigger sensor will mean you have to shoot with shallow DoF. If you want deep DoF on a big sensor, just close down your iris. If sensor size is all that's worrying you, well, in this case it shouldn't.

 

[Gary Huff]

Let's break it down even more...if you want a wide angle look while retaining shallow DOF, then the 5D is your camera. If color, image detail, and useability (articulating LCDs are incredibly nice to have), then the GH3 will work better for you.

 

[Samuel H]

I don't aggree with that. You know, you can shoot f/16 on the 5D3! And before somebody throws diffraction on the table... yes, it's there, but still: most lenses are sharper at f/16 than at f/2.8: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/03/overcoming-my-fentekaphobia

With a 24mm set at f/16 on a full frame camera, hyperfocal distance is 1.44m. Everything 1m or farther from the camera will be in focus. http://www.similaar.com/foto/dof/dof.php?f_x=1&f_r=1.77&f_mm=24&f_f=16&f_d=2

edit: now, if you're trying to do that at night and had your ISO pumped up to 3200 already, well, then the 5D3 is in trouble, the GH3 will have the same DoF at f/8, which means it has two stops more of light coming in. But that's not my typical usage.

 

[Gary Huff]

Shooting at f/16 is not going to make the 5D image look as resolute as the GH3/GH2.

 

[Samuel H]

Because the image processing makes the 5D image soft, or because of diffraction? I could understand the former, but now with RAW it might be different. For tha latter, well, no: diffraction kicks in earlier on a smaller sensor.

 

[TheDingo]

All my lenses are a lot sharper on FF than on APS-C, specially in the corners

That's because they are not designed specifically for the APS-C sensor, so you are getting a bit of a compromise using lenses designed for FF on an APS-C camera.

Micro 4/3 lenses are specifically designed for the m4/3 sensor and are generally much higher resolution because of this. ( i.e. FF resolution being packed into a m4/3 size imaging area )

 

[TheDingo]

most lenses are sharper at f/16 than at f/2.8

Not with premium Olympus and Panasonic Micro 4/3 lenses, which are designed to perform optimally between full aperture and one stop down. There is almost no penalty in sharpness when shooting wide open with these premium m4/3 lenses.

I was actually surprised to see that sharpness falls quickly with the Panasonic 35-100mm zoom when you close down more than f/5.6, so optimally you should be shooting between wide-open to f/5.6.

 

[Celluloid Dream]

Images from larger sensors in general have more resolution than images from smaller sensors. Its because the larger sensor is less demanding of the lens and the magnification is less. That is an undeniable fact for still image shooting. When you start talking about video that is a completely different ballgame. So many other factors in play when you start talking about video.

I am in a position to know this intimately, because I own a 5D Mark III and a 550D and some pretty decent Canon lenses. All of my lenses a sharper on the 5D3 than on the 550D. It so easy to see. Now, I don't need DxOMark to tell me this, but their lens test data backs up what I see with my eyes. The 550D is sharp, but the 5D3 takes it to a whole other level. I am talking about raw still images here, in case anyone is confused.

With a similar lens no m4/3 camera will ever out resolve the 5D3 in raw still images. Right now the limit of m4/3 is about 11mp resolved. For the 550D it is 14mp, the 5D3 22mp.

Canon 40mm on 1.6 crop vs Canon 40mm on FF, look at the sharpness difference. http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/966/(brand)/Canon/(camera1)/645/(lens2)/966/(brand2)/Canon/(camera2)/795

The Best m4/3 prime lens Olympus 75mm f/1.8 vs the Canon 70-200 zoom http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/408/(brand)/Canon/(camera1)/795/(lens2)/898/(brand2)/Olympus/(camera2)/677

 

[TheDingo]

Images from larger sensors in general have more resolution than images from smaller sensors

Yes, given the same sensor design and the same lenses.

But once you start comparing different sensors with lenses that are actually designed for the format, then it's a whole different ball game.

I haven't seen any evidence that Full Frame cameras out resolve m4/3 cameras when the sensor pixel count is the same.

I would love to see a comparison between the 16 Mpx Nikon D4 against the 16 Mpx Panasonic GH3, with both cameras shooting RAW images at low ISO ratings.

All of my lenses a sharper on the 5D3 than on the 550D

A fairer test would be to test with lenses specifically made for the APS-C sensor that are of comparable quality. ( i.e. Canon L FF lens vs Canon L APS-C lens )

But I don't think Canon currently has any plans to make APS-C "L" lenses.


DxOMark resolution tests are severely flawed because the limiting factor is the camera body they are using to test with.

If they had used 16 Mpx bodies for both Canon and Olympus premium lens tests the DxOMark results would be quite different.

 

[Celluloid Dream]

Your going to be severely disappointed if you compare the Nikon D4 to the GH3. It's like a middle school team vs the NFL. No comparison.

How is a resolution test flawed because it test the lens on a actual camera? How else would you test a lens? A lens without a camera is an expensive paperweight. Your argument against them is strange, because every lens test on the internet is done by actually using the lens on a camera.

You can choose not to believe, but I am telling you once again, in no uncertain terms: Comparing resolution, a 16mp full frame camera to a 16mp m4/3. The FF is going to walk all over the m4/3, it won't even be close.

 

[TheDingo]

Your going to be severely disappointed if you compare the Nikon D4 to the GH3. It's like a middle school team vs the NFL. No comparison.

I am not so sure about that. Yes the D4 will run circles around the GH3 when it comes to low-light shooting or high frame-rate still photo shooting, but in terms of resolution at 200 ISO, I would really like to see the results of this comparison.

How is a resolution test flawed because it test the lens on a actual camera?

Because the camera sensor resolution is the limiting factor not the lens.

For example, if you were to test a premium Canon FF lens on a 22 Mpx Canon 5D Mk3 body, and then compare this to an equivalent Nikon FF lens on a 36 Mpx Nikon D800e body, I would expect the Nikon lens would cream the Canon lens in terms of actual resolution in the recorded image. If you switched the bodies, then likely the Canon lens would come out on top. So what you are testing is the limitation of the camera body and NOT the actual resolution of the lens.

How else would you test a lens?

With optical test bench equipment ( the way it's been normally done for the past 50 years ), where no camera sensor resolution factor comes into play.

I recently read a test report on the Olympus 75mm f/1.8, where the reviewer stated that this Olympus 75mm lens scored higher than any other lens they have tested in the past 10 years. Higher resolution and higher contrast, with lower chromatic abberation. ( this is for all camera formats )

 

[leteeci]

Doesn't have GH3 more resolution than 5D just because it uses down-convert against line-skipping?

.

 

[Celluloid Dream]

Doesn't have GH3 more resolution than 5D just because it uses down-convert against line-skipping?

.

Well, the stock 5D3 does some truly resolution destructive processing on its video.

I am talking about raw still images and the resolution of cameras as a system in that context. The reason I am discussing this here on a video forum is this will also have an impact on the resolution of video camera systems, if the video camera systems are properly making use of the resolution that they are capable of making. (think raw 5D3 video vs. Canon h.264 5D3 video)

I don't separate a camera system into camera body or lens because that makes no sense in the real world. All that matters is how the lens performs when making an image with the camera + lens as a system.

You can have the greatest lens in world on an optical test bench, and it literally gains you nothing if you pair it with a small sensor camera that can't make good use of it.

How much the resolution advantage of larger sensors translates to raw video is a facinating question. But in raw video, just like in raw stills, larger sensors will have a resolution advantage if properly implemented.

 

[Celluloid Dream]

I recently read a test report on the Olympus 75mm f/1.8, where the reviewer stated that this Olympus 75mm lens scored higher than any other lens they have tested in the past 10 years. Higher resolution and higher contrast, with lower chromatic abberation. ( this is for all camera formats )

I already showed how the Olympus 75mm f/1.8 compares to the Canon 70-200 zoom in post #171 above. If we compare it to a prime lens on the Canon the gulf will be even wider. http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?307189-5d-or-GH3&p=1986319860&viewfull=1#post1986319860

 

[Gary Huff]

Doesn't have GH3 more resolution than 5D just because it uses down-convert against line-skipping?

No, because the 5D Mark III doesn't line skip. It does have a somewhat aggressive OLPF.

The GH3 uses pixel-binning (if it's like the GH2) for taking the full area of the m4/3 sensor and de-rezzing it down to 1080 for video. It's not quite the difference between m4/3 and 1080 like the 22MP Full Frame sensor in the 5D.

 

[TheDingo]

I already showed how the Olympus 75mm f/1.8 compares to the Canon 70-200 zoom in post #171 above

The DxOMark tests are essentially useless when comparing lens performance because they are not factoring the difference in the Mpx of the camera body.

If I was going to accept this logic, well here's another wonderful test of the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L ISII USM lens...

DxOMark : Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens versus Olympus 75mm f/1.8 Lens

Can you see the problem with testing lenses this way?

 

[GrahamH]

Your going to be severely disappointed if you compare the Nikon D4 to the GH3. It's like a middle school team vs the NFL. ...
You can choose not to believe, but I am telling you once again, in no uncertain terms: Comparing resolution, a 16mp full frame camera to a 16mp m4/3. The FF is going to walk all over the m4/3, it won't even be close.

Maybe for stills, but for video the image is being crunched down to 1080x1920 pixels or whatever. That introduces additional considerations, making what you are saying here not necessarily so.