Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 33
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Real Name

    Mirrorless Camera ISO Signal/Noise Shootout: NEX5, NX10, E-P2, E-PL1, GF1, G2, GH1

    Having compared the size of several different mirrorless interchangeable lens systems, we'll now take a look at how much detail relative to noise is captured at any given ISO by each of these systems.

    Special thanks to
    B&H Photo for providing the following cameras used in this comparison: Panasonic G2, Olympus E-PL1, Olympus E-P2, Sony NEX5, Panasonic GF1. The Panasonic GH1 is mine.

    If you're reading this on the blog main page with resized images, click here to view this post with all images at full size.

    Design and Methods:

    • The goal here was to show the relative potential of these systems, hence I will present only RAW conversions and not in-camera JPEGs. There are many sites with excellent in-camera JPEG comparisons.
    • All images were made using Sony, Samsung, and Panasonic (14-45mm) kit zooms at f/5, which was chosen because it represents a setting of good center sharpness with adequate depth of field for all systems.
    • All kit zooms were used at their widest setting, and the subject distance was constant. The Panasonic lens at 14mm actually has a slightly wider angle of view than the Sony/Samsung at 18mm, but the reverse is true after Lightroom correction of barrel distortion. For practical purposes, the diagonal angle of view was fixed.
    • Since the purpose here was to look at sensor rather than lens performance, only center crops from the within sharp focus portion of the image were used for comparison.
    • To present a valid comparison of detail relative to noise at any given ISO, exposure times were matched for all systems as follows: 1) ISO 100: 2s; 2) ISO 200: 1s; 3) ISO 400: 1/4s; 4) ISO 800: 1/4s; ISO 1600: 1/8s; ISO 3200: 1/15s; ISO 6400: 1/30s. Lighting sources were kept constant.
    • Each shot was done in triplicate to ensure reproducibility.
    • All system settings were image stabilization off, self-timer, sturdy tripod.

    A few details about the RAW conversions:

    • RAW files were processed in Lightroom 3.2 RC, which supports all of the cameras tested.
    • Custom white balance was applied during RAW conversion, and each RAW file was white balanced off of the gray paper in the image. Due to my imprecise white balance matching and differences in the LR 3.2 color profiles for each camera, I could not match colors perfectly. The colors on the GH1 crops are particularly off and do not represent a sensor problem but rather a limitation of my testing methodology.
    • Some of these cameras differ in image brightness (in Lightroom) given the same nominal ISO, f-number, and shutter speed. In order to present as controlled a comparison as possible, "Auto tone" was used in Lightroom to more closely match the final brightness of each image.
    • Sharpening settings were Lightroom default (same for all cameras), and both luminance and color noise reduction were disabled entirely.
    • In order to provide as fair a comparison as possible, the Sony and Samsung images were downsized during export from Lightroom such that their diagonal image dimension would match that of the Micro 4/3 cameras. Showing all images at their native size would have penalized the Sony and Samsung for using more megapixels, while the chosen method is akin to comparing equal-sized prints from each camera.
    • RAW files provided for download have been converted to DNG for the sake of conserving storage/bandwidth.

    Here is the test scene with yellow rectangles indicating the selections shown in the crop comparisons which follow:

    Name:  Scene.jpg
Views: 48602
Size:  135.9 KB

    ISO 100 crops (NEX 5 not shown since it has no ISO 100 setting):

    Name:  Picture-25.jpg
Views: 48786
Size:  252.7 KB

    Name:  Picture-24.jpg
Views: 48644
Size:  276.8 KB

    Name:  Picture-23.jpg
Views: 48965
Size:  281.3 KB

    ISO 100 RAW files:

    ISO 200 crops:

    Name:  Picture-22.jpg
Views: 48589
Size:  300.8 KB

    Name:  Picture-21.jpg
Views: 48420
Size:  333.8 KB

    Name:  Picture-20.jpg
Views: 48129
Size:  379.1 KB

    ISO 200 RAW files:

  2. The following 6 members like this post:: :jacobin:pigeon:,Armanius,Naveed Akhtar,olli,PeterB666,pictor
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Real Name

  4. The following 6 members like this post:: :jacobin:pigeon:,Armanius,gsaronni,Naveed Akhtar,olli,pictor
  5. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Real Name

  6. The following 5 members like this post:: :jacobin:pigeon:,Armanius,madmaxmedia,olli,pictor
  7. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Real Name
    ISO 6400* crops:

    Name:  Picture-7.jpg
Views: 45152
Size:  567.3 KB

    Name:  Picture-6.jpg
Views: 44350
Size:  638.4 KB

    Name:  Picture-5.jpg
Views: 45737
Size:  630.5 KB

    ISO 6400* RAW files:

    * Cameras lacking an ISO 6400 setting were used at ISO 3200 underexposed by 1EV and pushed to ISO 6400 equivalent during RAW processing. Ie, all files shown here as ISO 6400 equivalent were made at f/5 and 1/30s with a constant light source.

  8. The following 4 members like this post:: :jacobin:pigeon:,Armanius,madmaxmedia,olli
  9. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Real Name
    The majority of color noise can be removed without impacting apparent detail. Let's look at some high ISO crops which have undergone color noise (but not luminance noise) removal using Noise Ninja and an "Auto Color" step in Photoshop to try for a slightly better color match.

    In these comparisons, I am using the Panasonic G2 as representative of the G2/GF1/E-P2/E-PL1, which all share the same sensor and as shown above, produce similar results.

    ISO 1600 crops:

    Name:  1600-1.jpg
Views: 46181
Size:  474.8 KB

    Name:  1600-2.jpg
Views: 43461
Size:  458.7 KB

    Name:  1600-3.jpg
Views: 43369
Size:  511.6 KB

    ISO 3200 crops:

    Name:  3200-1.jpg
Views: 43202
Size:  531.1 KB

    Name:  3200-2.jpg
Views: 42945
Size:  507.8 KB

    Name:  3200-3.jpg
Views: 42790
Size:  569.9 KB

    ISO 6400 crops:

    Name:  6400-1.jpg
Views: 42858
Size:  625.4 KB

    Name:  6400-2.jpg
Views: 42431
Size:  581.1 KB

    Name:  6400-3.jpg
Views: 42296
Size:  669.0 KB

  10. The following 5 members like this post:: :jacobin:pigeon:,Armanius,madmaxmedia,olli,pictor
  11. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Real Name

    • The NEX 5 has the best performance in terms of detail relative to noise. This is apparent even at low ISO, and the gap widens with increasing ISO.
    • At very high ISO, the NEX5 has a stop or more advantage over the G2/GF1/E-PL1/E-P2. You can see that by looking at these side-by-side crops (color noise removed):

    Name:  one-stop.jpg
Views: 227988
Size:  542.2 KB

    These observed results correlate well with data measured by DxOmark:

    Name:  dxo.jpg
Views: 43333
Size:  79.8 KB

    • The Panasonic G2, GF1, E-PL1, and E-P2 show very similar* results. This is consistent with my understanding that all of these cameras use the same sensor (with minor differences in the low pass filter).
    • The Samsung NX10 is a little disappointing at very high ISO. Based on sensor size, one would expect the NX10 to achieve much better results than the Micro 4/3 cameras. While it outperformed the G2/GF1/E-P2/E-PL1 in this shootout, the magnitude of difference was less than I expected, and the results at the highest ISOs were disappointing.
    • The Panasonic GH1 is, to my eye, second best in terms of signal relative to noise in these comparisons. One issue with the GH1 is that the files are susceptible to banding at high ISO. As a GH1 user, I've found that Nik Dfine 2.0 does a terrific job of addressing banding in GH1 files.

    *Splitting hairs, it looks to me like the E-PL1 and E-P2 crops are slightly noisier than the G2 and GF1 crops at high ISO. I believe this is due to the Olympus cameras actually applying less analog gain than the Panasonics for any given nominal ISO. DxOmark data (not shown) suggest for nominal ISO 1600, the Olympus image is an underexposed ISO 1000 image which has been "pushed" to ISO 1600 equivalent brightness, whereas the Panasonic image is an overexposed ISO 2000 image which has been "pulled" to ISO 1600 equivalent brightness.

    If that is true, what one would expect as is slightly more noise for the Olympus images (when shutter speed, nominal ISO, f-number, and final image brightness are equalized), and significantly more highlight headroom for the Olympus files (under the same circumstances). As it turns out, that's exactly what we have here. Don't take my word for it, open the Olympus RAW files in your favorite RAW converter, pull back the apparent exposure by, and those blown highlights will be salvaged. Try the same thing with the Panasonic files, and those highlights are gone beyond recovery.

    This doesn't mean that the Olympus cameras produce noisier files (or higher dynamic range files) than the Panasonic cameras. They use the same sensor, and the Olympus files are only noisier with better highlight retention if you match the nominal ISO, aperture, and shutter speed as I have done here. If you set the E-P2 to ISO 3200, 1/8s, f/5 and the Panasonic to ISO 1600, 1/8s, f/5, the RAW data (including signal relative to noise and highlight headroom) should be the same, and the appearance should match up after you "pull" the E-P2 file during RAW conversion.

    These comparisons take lots of time, energy, bandwidth, and server space, and would not be possible without B&H Photo providing the gear for testing.

    Please help support Serious Compacts by clicking the button below before you make your next purchase from B&H Photo.

    Direct links to check pricing and availability at B&H:

  12. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    NW corner of CT
    Real Name
    Thank you so much for all your efforts. I can't even begin to fathom all the time and effort that has gone into these tests and comparisons. And many thanks to B&H Photo, too!

    **an evolving photographer.

    ~ BB's Flickr photostream & Flickriver or Fluidr

  13. The following member likes this post: Amin Sabet
  14. #8
    That's an interesting and very well done test! I enjoyed reading it very much, thanks for your efforts!
    Hidden in the ordinary are great beauties. (Saul Leiter)

  15. The following member likes this post: Amin Sabet
  16. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    North East England (UK)
    Srange for me as I have owned a G1 (two to be precise) and niether could touch my NX10 for noise comparison. I find that my NX10 is able to be 'cleaned' better at high ISO than the G1. I also found that my NX10 is easily better at ISO800 and 1600 than my G1. Unless I had two 'bad' G1's I cannot understand this 'not so small' difference in noise control.

    (assuming that the G1 has a similar sensor to the other Lumix cameras here)

    Thanks for the tests anyway.

  17. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Perth, Western Australia
    Thanks for all the work and the summary. I agree with you about the NEX-5 - impressive results without a doubt. As I am in transition from a {G1+E-P2} combo to a GH1 - I am happy about how it performs. It seems to have a different colour rendition in the brown area - not sure if it is more or less accurate.
    Bill Shinnick
    RX10; RX100; G5{IR}; G12.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v4.3.0