Camera review
27
Resolution
Differences between Raw files were marginal, and only significant for the finest of details viewed at full size on-screen. The E-M1’s images are sharper and contain more detail, undoubtedly down to the fact that it’s the only camera of the four that has no anti- aliasing filter. Between the other three, it was a close run, although the E-M10 perhaps has a slight edge over the Panasonics. Treatment of images for JPEGs is similar in all four – some contrast is added, and in the main this increases sharpness. Probably the most dramatic effect is in the GH4 images – the Raw files are the softest, but JPEGs are sharpened nicely to bring them in line with the others. There is some slight blocking up of colours, but this is minimal and similar in all four cameras.
The current crop of Micro Four Thirds cameras from both Olympus and Panasonic all have 16-megapixel sensors. The accordance and lack of increase in recent top-end releases suggests that the sensor size is perhaps a barrier to any higher resolution at this stage, but 16 megapixels is plenty for A3-size prints. We took a variety of shots with each of the cameras to see howmuch each gets out of its pixel quota in Raw and JPEG files. All comparison shots were taken at the same focal length and aperture, and the centre point was focused on the same spot in the scene. Since the lens mounts are the same, each camera was used with the same lens to allow a direct comparison – we chose the Panasonic Lumix 14-140mm f/3.5-5.6 for this.
OLYMPUS OM-D E-M1
OLYMPUS OM-D E-M10
PANASONIC GH4
PANASONIC GX7
JPEG
JPEG
JPEG
JPEG
RAW
RAW
RAW
RAW
The verdict
Micro Four Thirds cameras are certainly a category worth considering if the size of your camera is an issue. The compact bodies and lenses mean they’re much smaller and lighter than DSLRs, and for some this will outweigh any sacrifices in capability. And as our tests have shown, these sacrifices are not big. For current DSLR users, the attraction of a Micro Four Thirds model may well depend on the sensor format of your current camera. The performance of the Micro Four Thirds cameras in terms of image quality wasn’t far behind the APS-C format Nikon D5300. Resolution was a little short, but there was nothing to separate the ISO performance and noise. As a backup or even replacement for an APS-C DSLR then, these cameras have a lot of appeal. For full-frame users, the gap in performance is much bigger, as you would expect. Both in terms of resolution and image noise, the bigger sensor showed clear benefits, and to consider the Micro Four Thirds format as a second camera or alternative to your full-frame camera requires more careful weighing up of the pros and cons.
is its size, which doesn’t maximise the benefit of the compact system. Although there was very little to choose between these cameras, the Olympus OM-D E-M1 did stand out for its still image quality. The sensor, without an optical low pass filter, produced images that stood out from the rest for their sharpness and detail, and this helped images hold out better at higher ISO sensitivities. The OM-D E-M10 is also a very interesting prospect though, since it’s an awful lot smaller, yet shares many features with both the E-M1 and the middle camera in the series, the E-M5. Considering that the price is down alongside most other entry- level CSCs, it’s fantastic value for OM-D performance.
Performance of all four Micro Four Thirds cameras was very similar, and there was very little to separate them – the main differences are a matter of features, handling and price. The GX7 is perhaps the most limited in terms of handling, although it’s very compact and its core performance was similar to the GH4. The GH4 itself was excellent all round, and of course there’s that 4K video. Its main disadvantage
The full version of this CSC test, including
comparisons with DSLRs, appeared in issue 45, 46 and 47 of Advanced Photographer. Issues 45, 46 and 47 are available to back order from http:// bit.ly/apissues.
Performance of all fourMicro Four Thirds cameraswas very similar, and therewas very little to separate them– themaindifferences are a matter of features, handling and price
www.photography-news.co.uk
Issue 12 | Photography News
Powered by FlippingBook