Older Nikons vs Newer Micro 4/3

[Crotal Bell]

As a beginner on a tight budget, and with little experience of digital cameras, I often wonder about image quality and all the talk of sensor sizes, HDR, low light performance etc etc

So I ask for your thoughts on this......

Lets take a 2013 Nikon like the D5300. While the lenses are more expensive this is offset by the cheaper 2nd hand camera.
Crop sensor and 24MP, and said to take great images.

Then lets take the Panasonic G90, a few years more modern, a little more expensive 2nd hand, but cheaper lenses.
MFT Sensor and 20MP

According to some comments, the advances in sensor technology suggest the Panasonic may be just as capable of great pictures, then again some say you can't beat the bigger sensor and higher pixel combo for greater image quality.

So what do you experienced people have to say, are there notable differences? Would the Nikon still win? Is the later tech on par with a more modern MFT. Or are the differences in real world photography completely negligible and not worth worrying about?

 

[woof woof]

Found this...

Nikon D5300 vs Panasonic G90 Comparison Review

Detailed comparison of the Nikon D5300 and the Panasonic G90. Click through to find out about their relative size and key specifications.

www.apotelyt.com

I not sure I believe those DR figures but I could be wrong.

I don't think I'd ever go back to a DSLR as you lose all the things mirrorless brings including the accurate and consistent focus and of course seeing the picture you're about to take.

 

[Deleted member 95430]

Totally neglible and you’ll never spot it. Pixel peeping is fine if thats what youre into but itll make no real world difference. What I think is important for beginners is ergonomics and how it feels to shoot.

 

[tijuana taxi]

Why don't you use what you have got?
All swapping does is cost money, that's fine if you have plenty of it.
I've had FF, crop and now M4/3, all produce decent photos which print nicely at A3.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

So what do you experienced people have to say, are there notable differences?

No.

I've owned and used many digital cameras. Relevant to this discussion: a Nikon D5100, with much the same sensor as the D5300 and the Panasonic G9, basically a G90 on steroids but in terms of the sensor, pretty well the same.

Would the Nikon still win?

It never did and the real world results are close enough for all but the pickiest.

Is the later tech on par with a more modern MFT.

As above - very little different in the real world.

Or are the differences in real world photography completely negligible and not worth worrying about?

Effectively, non existent.

The arguments will now commence...

... or not

 

[ancient_mariner]

The differences *could* be significant IF you want to make the most of some aspects of each camera. Potential image quality may be very similar given similar lenses, but both are part of much wider systems that should also be taken into account.

For example, Nikon have a very wide range of lenses available that M43 can't match, like tilt-shift, fast telephotos, fast primes etc.

M43 lenses are smaller and lighter, easier to carry. IBIS is great and AF probably quite a bit better.

IIRC you already have an M43 outfit? I wouldn't seek to change it for a D5300 unless there was something about the Nikon ecosystem that you needed.

 

[Crotal Bell]

Totally neglible and you’ll never spot it. Pixel peeping is fine if thats what youre into but itll make no real world difference. What I think is important for beginners is ergonomics and how it feels to shoot.

That's a good point and I love the dials on my G80, not that I have much to compare with. I walked with it in my hand for over an hour Tuesday and it was completely comfortable. Funny how some of the reviewers can make people think silly things are important as well. Reviewers stating that small grips means your little finger won't fit on the grip. My little finger has to go under the grip but I only noticed Tuesday because I thought about it, but realistically it has zero affect on comfort when out walking.

 

[Crotal Bell]

Why don't you use what you have got?
All swapping does is cost money, that's fine if you have plenty of it.
I've had FF, crop and now M4/3, all produce decent photos which print nicely at A3.

It's more about learning from you folks than a burning desire to swap or change systems. TBH I haven't had my camera long enough to know what it's capable of, and it's still much better than I am.

 

[Crotal Bell]

No.

I've owned and used many digital cameras. Relevant to this discussion: a Nikon D5100, with much the same sensor as the D5300 and the Panasonic G9, basically a G90 on steroids but in terms of the sensor, pretty well the same.

It never did and the real world results are close enough for all but the pickiest.

As above - very little different in the real world.

Effectively, non existent.

The arguments will now commence...

... or not

That's helpful to know and thanks for the comparison from your own experience.

 

[woof woof]

The biggest weakness of MFT for me when compared to my Sony A7 is dynamic range and there are many occasions for me when this difference is glaringly obvious. When it isn't obvious MFT shots can be easily lost amongst A7 shots.

I saw an A7 in a cash converters type shop today for £420 and that camera isn't significantly bigger than a MFT mini SLR camera and it's maybe smaller than some. FF lenses can make a big difference though both size and weight wise and cost wise. Most of my MFT kit was bought used and cheap.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Ah, my cynicism was justified after all.

I knew there'd be someone along in a minute, ready for battle...

 

[Crotal Bell]

The differences *could* be significant IF you want to make the most of some aspects of each camera. Potential image quality may be very similar given similar lenses, but both are part of much wider systems that should also be taken into account.

For example, Nikon have a very wide range of lenses available that M43 can't match, like tilt-shift, fast telephotos, fast primes etc.

M43 lenses are smaller and lighter, easier to carry. IBIS is great and AF probably quite a bit better.

IIRC you already have an M43 outfit? I wouldn't seek to change it for a D5300 unless there was something about the Nikon ecosystem that you needed.

Interesting, thanks for that.

The biggest weakness of MFT for me when compared to my Sony A7 is dynamic range and there are many occasions for me when this difference is glaringly obvious. When it isn't obvious MFT shots can be easily lost amongst A7 shots.

I saw an A7 in a cash converters type shop today for £420 and that camera isn't significantly bigger than a MFT mini SLR camera and it's maybe smaller than some. FF lenses can make a big difference though both size and weight wise and cost wise. Most of my MFT kit was bought used and cheap.

What exactly do you get with better HDR?

 

[Deleted member 95430]

That's a good point and I love the dials on my G80, not that I have much to compare with. I walked with it in my hand for over an hour Tuesday and it was completely comfortable. Funny how some of the reviewers can make people think silly things are important as well. Reviewers stating that small grips means your little finger won't fit on the grip. My little finger has to go under the grip but I only noticed Tuesday because I thought about it, but realistically it has zero affect on comfort when out walking.

I got a xt30 and a great camera but it is a bit dinky for me so looking for something chunkier in the hands

 

[Crotal Bell]

I got a xt30 and a great camera but it is a bit dinky for me so looking for something chunkier in the hands

Horses for courses and I guess many would agree with you.

 

[ancient_mariner]

A piece of advice that used to be quoted a lot was to change camera systems when you knew where your existing system was holding you back, and knew what you needed to buy in order to achieve your objectives. New toys are nice, but can burn through a lot of cash without helping you to grow and develop.

 

[Crotal Bell]

Found this...

Nikon D5300 vs Panasonic G90 Comparison Review

Detailed comparison of the Nikon D5300 and the Panasonic G90. Click through to find out about their relative size and key specifications.

www.apotelyt.com

I not sure I believe those DR figures but I could be wrong.

I don't think I'd ever go back to a DSLR as you lose all the things mirrorless brings including the accurate and consistent focus and of course seeing the picture you're about to take.

Funny enough that was one of the reasons I chose the two cameras to see what real photographers had to say.

 

[woof woof]

Ah, my cynicism was justified after all.

I knew there'd be someone along in a minute, ready for battle...

Ah, we'd have gotten away with it if it wasn't for those pesky facts that people should not know.

I often take pictures in a bush and tree lined path and at the coast and with MFT the highlight blow so easily when the scenes DR is high. Shooting for the highlights and boosting the shadows only does so much. To deny or ignore facts is rather silly as they could matter to some people in some situations. It is much better to be honest, provide the facts and then let people make informed decisions.

As I keep advising. Start with the final picture and work back to decide the kit and the settings.

 

[Crotal Bell]

A piece of advice that used to be quoted a lot was to change camera systems when you knew where your existing system was holding you back, and knew what you needed to buy in order to achieve your objectives. New toys are nice, but can burn through a lot of cash without helping you to grow and develop.

Now that is very good advice, and I'm on a learning curve here more than wanting to change systems. I don't know half the possibilities of what I have yet, let alone a different camera !

 

[woof woof]

Interesting, thanks for that.

What exactly do you get with better HDR?

I've never done HDR. All I do is point and shoot and do basic processing. HDR is beyond me.

Another way around limited DR is exposing for the highlights and shadows and merging post capture but that won't work unless you have the time to take multiple shots without something moving.

Back to the question.

I wouldn't change MFT for an APS-C DSLR without a very good reason and at the mo I can't think of one.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I don't know half the possibilities of what I have yet, let alone a different camera !

Then ignore the idiots and concentrate on taking hundreds or even thousands of pictures!

 

[ancient_mariner]

What exactly do you get with better HDR?

HDR is a technique that uses multiple images exposed differently and blended in post to create an image from a scene with a wider dynamic range than the cameras sensor could cope with.

Dynamic range is the range of light levels that a camera sensor can record reliably in this context.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

HDR is a technique that uses multiple images exposed differently and blended in post to create an image from a scene with a wider dynamic range than the cameras sensor could cope with.

In days of yore there were various ways of getting a similar effect...

• Using reflectors and sun shields to reduce the contrast.
• Switching to a film with a higher speed rating, which typically produced a softer result and reduced the contrast across the image.
• Developing the film in a compensating developer which slowed development in the more exposed (lighter) areas.
• Preflashing the printing paper, to introduce a small amount of fog and reduce the contrast of the print.
• Airbrushing areas that needed toning down or bringing up.

Controlling the contrast of scenes has been a problem since those idiots Daguere and Fox Talbot invented photography.

 

[Ham]

I'm another m43 afficionado, for me if there was going to be any tension between systems, it would be to a full frame setup, then the differences can be noticeable, although arguably only when m43 is pushed to the limit. The difference between m43 and a crop sensor outfit are not as significant, and for me the compact nature of the m43 wins hands down when compared to ff. I'd love to be in a position where I knew that, if only I had a better camera, the photos would have been better. As AM pointed out up there ^^, the time to change is when your gear is holding you back.

 

[Crotal Bell]

HDR is a technique that uses multiple images exposed differently and blended in post to create an image from a scene with a wider dynamic range than the cameras sensor could cope with.

Dynamic range is the range of light levels that a camera sensor can record reliably in this context.

Than you

 

[Crotal Bell]

Controlling the contrast of scenes has been a problem since those idiots Daguere and Fox Talbot invented photography.

That made me chuckle

 

[Crotal Bell]

I'm another m43 afficionado, for me if there was going to be any tension between systems, it would be to a full frame setup, then the differences can be noticeable, although arguably only when m43 is pushed to the limit. The difference between m43 and a crop sensor outfit are not as significant, and for me the compact nature of the m43 wins hands down when compared to ff. I'd love to be in a position where I knew that, if only I had a better camera, the photos would have been better. As AM pointed out up there ^^, the time to change is when your gear is holding you back.

I guess you have to learn to be competent at photography before you can even start to assess if your gear is holding you back.
I am not competent enough to consider that at the moment. I've had some shots that have made me very happy, and some that I know would have looked better if I was more competent. I was halfway through a photo walk the other day before I realised my aperture was scrolled all the way to F22, and I could see it had affected the photos.

 

[ancient_mariner]

In days of yore there were various ways of getting a similar effect...

• Using reflectors and sun shields to reduce the contrast.
• Switching to a film with a higher speed rating, which typically produced a softer result and reduced the contrast across the image.
• Developing the film in a compensating developer which slowed development in the more exposed (lighter) areas.
• Preflashing the printing paper, to introduce a small amount of fog and reduce the contrast of the print.
• Airbrushing areas that needed toning down or bringing up.

Controlling the contrast of scenes has been a problem since those idiots Daguere and Fox Talbot invented photography.

In the days of film, unless shooting transparency, you had to try pretty hard to find a scene that could defeat the dynamic range of the negative, and once the detail was captured, some deft dodging & burning or masking usually solved the problem. I did try pre-flashing, but often ended up with pseudo-solarisation instead, which was cool but not intended mostly (I was a Man Ray fan). My recollection of faster film was of higher contrast, rather than lower, but I guess it might have helped if one was willing to pull hard enough.

Then there was the kludge of filters, but they seem much less common than even 5 years ago.

 

[piper]

As a beginner on a tight budget, and with little experience of digital cameras, I often wonder about image quality and all the talk of sensor sizes, HDR, low light performance etc etc

So I ask for your thoughts on this......

Lets take a 2013 Nikon like the D5300. While the lenses are more expensive this is offset by the cheaper 2nd hand camera.
Crop sensor and 24MP, and said to take great images.

20 vs 24 mpx - little difference IMO. I tend to think of only say 24-45 mpx as significant, certainly for print size.

Then lets take the Panasonic G90, a few years more modern, a little more expensive 2nd hand, but cheaper lenses.
MFT Sensor and 20MP

According to some comments, the advances in sensor technology suggest the Panasonic may be just as capable of great pictures, then again some say you can't beat the bigger sensor and higher pixel combo for greater image quality.

According to the photons2photos site, photographic dynamic range is similar except at base iso. Doubt you will see any difference in practice

So what do you experienced people have to say, are there notable differences? Would the Nikon still win? Is the later tech on par with a more modern MFT. Or are the differences in real world photography completely negligible and not worth worrying about?

Either will probably do what you want BUT - more lenses for m43 in general and IBIS on the G90. Also not so many bright lenses for Nikon APS-C so even though light gathering and/or getting a narrow enough depth of field might seem an issue I wonder in practice if it is - you would need to be looking at only a few ( but good ) primes for the D5300 like the 35/1.8G DX or the 50 or 85/1.8 G FX - OK gives you a bit more light that the ( say oly ) 25/1.8, 45/1.8. I am glossing over both the expensive pro 1.2's in m43 and the 1.4's (FF FX ) for the D5300

I have shot olympus ( mainly ) m43 for 10 years and Nikon APS-C and FF DSLRs ( only 20-24 ppx ) for nearly as long. Don't really see much of a difference - but that is a personal take.

Wide angles are easier to get on a larger sensor: the af-p 10-20 would be a candidate for the D5300 ( it is compatible ). For m43, the cheapest, and a nice option is the oly 9-18 but not as wide.

There is the viewfinder issue: again personal taste - I prefer an OVF as in the D5300 but actually have to use EVF's in m43, Nikon 1 and a Z6 most of the time.

If you KNOW that you want/need long or very long lenses to do wildlife, esp birds then it might influence how you start out. There are far more and cheaper ways into that with a Canon or Nikon APS-C DSLR than with m43 which has a short and expensive long tele ( > 300mm ) lens list. But that is pretty niche - except for those who do it.

Final suggestion: have a look, if you can at the Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark 2 ( not the Mark 1 ). Really cheap used and a good camera. I just use my old em5.1 nowadays

 

[ancient_mariner]

I guess you have to learn to be competent at photography before you can even start to assess if your gear is holding you back.

If you were trying to take a shot but repeatedly failing to get a good capture because the gear couldn't focus in low light levels*, or the kind of photography you wanted required very shallow depth of field, or there weren't any long telephoto lenses available for that brand etc then it might be obvious, even before one became 'competent'.

*I like FF gear, and had a D610, but the AF was just useless in the low light levels of pubs where I'd take pictures of the guys in my band. Whether I'm competent or not, switching to a camera with better AF made things easier.

 

[Sangoma]

I'm surprised that with the interest in DR so few seem to use HDR

HDR is neither complicated or hard to use, and easier on a Lumix than a Canon.
Takes less than a second to take the 3/5 or 7 shots, and a minute or so to process.

It is easy to see when there is a high DR in a shot, so not all need to be shot in HDR, however in a setting where there is mainly scenes with a high DR, then leave it in that mode, the centre shot is always the normally exposed one if you don't need or want to process.

I never use the HDR setting on the camera, but it does a reasonable job with no extra work if you want something really easy.

That means there is nothing that M43 can't do then

 

[delb0y]

We all go on photography gear journeys - I think it's part of the joy of the hobby. Some folks travel first class on those journeys, and others have to hop freight trains. But the one thing we seem to have to do is to experience the kit ourselves, before coming to the very conclusions that loads of people already told us on forums.

For a while I felt the need to scratch the full frame itch. The only way I could do so was to buy a D700. Every other full frame camera was above £400 (my self imposed limit for this hobby). I found a very good example for less than this and I went for it. I absolutely love this camera. It's a joy to use - very simple, not too many buttons or menus, just the essentials. The images are great - there genuinely is something special about them, a sort of depth that I really like.

But... In real life my G80 is way more practical. The G80 is the perfect size for me - I can walk with it day and don't notice it (the grip means it balances perfectly on my fingers as I walk), the silent mode is great, the speed, the lenses, everything. The D700 is just way too big and heavy. If I'm cycling, which is what I do, it's a no-no.

Yes, the D700 has some kind of cool vibe / soul and I do love it - but, for instance, I had some lovely collared doves, two huge crows, and about fifty starlings in the garden the other day. Figuring there were some shots to be had I crawled out the back door, lined up my first photo, clicked the D700 shutter - which is loud! - and every bird for about fifty yards immediately fled in alarm. With the G80 and the 100-300 and electronic shutter engaged I reckon I'd have had some wonderful photos.

Of course, this doesn't mean that a modern full frame camera won't be a better fit, but this little diversion on my journey has proved to me the G80 does everything I personally require. I can't imagine needing more that what it does (although, as mentioned on other thread, my personal copy is gradually falling apart so there will have to be a change one day).

Derek

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

There are far more and cheaper ways into that with a Canon or Nikon APS-C DSLR than with m43 which has a short and expensive long tele ( > 300mm ) lens list.

When it comes to auto everything lenses, this is true.

...but you can get round it in various ways if you really want to. For example, I have one of the old Tampon AD2 500mm mirror lenses and fitted to a M43 camera via the appropriate adaptor, it's a useful ultra long lens.

Then again, the Panasonic 100~400mm is relatively cheap, compared to an equivalent full frame lens but its small size and weight make a very useful lens for long distance grab shots, like these two from yesterday...

 

[woof woof]

When it comes to auto everything lenses, this is true.

...but you can get round it in various ways if you really want to. For example, I have one of the old Tampon AD2 500mm mirror lenses and fitted to a M43 camera via the appropriate adaptor, it's a useful ultra long lens.

Then again, the Panasonic 100~400mm is relatively cheap, compared to an equivalent full frame lens but its small size and weight make a very useful lens for long distance grab shots, like these two from yesterday...

But Andrew, unless there's some great emotional attachment to those people and those moments most people would have deleted those two shots as they're just full of issues. Any shot is better than none I suppose but apart from the fact that these two shots exist it's difficult to imagine in what scenario these are good adverts for the capabilities of the kit, unless there's some factor I'm just not seeing.

 

[Sangoma]

20 vs 24 mpx - little difference IMO. I tend to think of only say 24-45 mpx as significant, certainly for print size.

According to the photons2photos site, photographic dynamic range is similar except at base iso. Doubt you will see any difference in practice

Either will probably do what you want BUT - more lenses for m43 in general and IBIS on the G90. Also not so many bright lenses for Nikon APS-C so even though light gathering and/or getting a narrow enough depth of field might seem an issue I wonder in practice if it is - you would need to be looking at only a few ( but good ) primes for the D5300 like the 35/1.8G DX or the 50 or 85/1.8 G FX - OK gives you a bit more light that the ( say oly ) 25/1.8, 45/1.8. I am glossing over both the expensive pro 1.2's in m43 and the 1.4's (FF FX ) for the D5300

I have shot olympus ( mainly ) m43 for 10 years and Nikon APS-C and FF DSLRs ( only 20-24 ppx ) for nearly as long. Don't really see much of a difference - but that is a personal take.

Wide angles are easier to get on a larger sensor: the af-p 10-20 would be a candidate for the D5300 ( it is compatible ). For m43, the cheapest, and a nice option is the oly 9-18 but not as wide.

There is the viewfinder issue: again personal taste - I prefer an OVF as in the D5300 but actually have to use EVF's in m43, Nikon 1 and a Z6 most of the time.

If you KNOW that you want/need long or very long lenses to do wildlife, esp birds then it might influence how you start out. There are far more and cheaper ways into that with a Canon or Nikon APS-C DSLR than with m43 which has a short and expensive long tele ( > 300mm ) lens list. But that is pretty niche - except for those who do it.

Final suggestion: have a look, if you can at the Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark 2 ( not the Mark 1 ). Really cheap used and a good camera. I just use my old em5.1 nowadays

I have the Panasonic 7-14, which I find really good.
As for long lenses, I don't know if there are cheaper ways with Canon, I didn't find any that would come close to the 100-300 or 100-400 in price and performance, and nowhere near in usability.

 

[the black fox]

My best advice would be to fully learn the functions of your current gear , I.e I have a olympus 1.mkiii and still after over a year not used half the functions I convinced myself I needed it for . If your looking to spend money or increase your skill levels then buy lenses ,both Olympus and Panasonic are interchangeable , and there’s a plethora of cheap Chinese lenses around both in AF and manual that are really very good .. also four thirds lenses via adaptors give full functions .. and then there’s legacy glass again via adaptors and MF all available

 

[snerkler]

If we're talking purely technical measurements and specifications then the D5300 still out performs even the best M4/3 such as the Panny GH5-II in terms of dynamic range and noise, however the difference isn't much so whether or not you'll see this in the real world is debatable, I would suggest not except in the most extreme of circumstances.

There will be a difference in depth of field, but again not huge. I'd focus more on which camera you prefer using.

 

[Stephen L]

Regarding dynamic range, yes there is a difference between FF and m4/3 in the labs. But it’s surprising what you can pull out of the shadows (and recover from the highlights) given sensible use of modern software. That also goes for noise - again, modern advances in software can materially reduce this. Plus, in the real world, how often does someone want to peer into the shadows rather than enjoy the moment. (No offence intended, @woof woof )

 

[Brazo]

I’ve recently bought a m4/3 system to run alongside my Nikon FF.

The biggest differences are in size and that the m4/3 is far more likely to be with me.

What m4/3 lacks for me at least is the shallow dof. No need to post your m4/3 bokeh shots as I can post mine too but your always two stops behind which makes it more difficult.

 

[snerkler]

I’ve recently bought a m4/3 system to run alongside my Nikon FF.

The biggest differences are in size and that the m4/3 is far more likely to be with me.

What m4/3 lacks for me at least is the shallow dof. No need to post your m4/3 bokeh shots as I can post mine too but your always two stops behind which makes it more difficult.

This is one of the main reasons I prefer to use my FF over my m4/3, in fact I’ve paired my m4/3 kit right back to the bare minimum now. I do think there is a more noticable difference in IQ between FF and m4/3 as opposed to APS-C vs m4/3 though obviously. Even when I had the best of the best m4/3 lenses the FF ones still gave me more pleasing images. YMMV.

 

[woof woof]

Regarding dynamic range, yes there is a difference between FF and m4/3 in the labs. But it’s surprising what you can pull out of the shadows (and recover from the highlights) given sensible use of modern software. That also goes for noise - again, modern advances in software can materially reduce this. Plus, in the real world, how often does someone want to peer into the shadows rather than enjoy the moment. (No offence intended, @woof woof )

deep sigh...

The DR you need from the kit depends on the DR of the scene, unless you're doing HDR or have some other way of mitigating things.

Imagine a pathway with high bushes and trees on either side and a low northern sun and lots of glare above and you may have seen this scene as I've posted about a million pictures of it. In that place MFT blows the highlights most of the time and even the A7 struggles and with MFT there's much less scope for boosting the shadows without the issues being immediately obvious.

Next imagine a wide open beach but trying to get someone's face or other thing nice and bright. Again the choice could be between blown highlights and impossible without issues shadow recovery. And flash isn't always the answer due to not having one or the power of the one you have or because it's just more hassle.

No offense to people who don't shoot in high DR scenarios or just don't notice blown highlights or excessively blotchy detail from raised too far shadows but there's no glossing over technical short comings if they matter to the person using the kit. I have two 20mp MFT cameras, GX9 and G100. Other MFT cameras may be a bit better but that's the kit I have.

Yup. We can all enjoy pictures of the moment which are full of issues but this is a kit thread in the gear section of the forum not the rose tinted memories thread.

Anyway. I really shouldn't have mention FF or DR as I should have known what would happen I only did so as IMHO DR is MFT's only real drawback, for me. I think Keith is looking at technical aspects here but MFT v APS-C, I see a lot to lose if going from mirrorless to DSLR, too much for me so even though MFT is a smaller format that's what I'd stick with given these choices.