I expected it to be better but really, this is no comparison. Panasonic and Olympus should be worried. I still think their cameras are much nicer looking (well, at least the EP2 and GF1) but when it comes to image quality they’re getting blown out of the water. At the current prices I can’t imagine too many people choosing a GF1 over this camera. I have a feeling we’re gonna start seeing some steep price cuts with micro 4/3.
The picture is supposed to be from Imaging Resource RAW files. OK so it shows more noise in raw files from m43, but gets me thinking is this the same thing as Sony did on A700, applying noise reduction or raw files?
If you look at the jpgs from IR, the difference is still there but a lot smaller.
It seems the photos above are from the RAW file, but you know it is unfair due to the result maybe very different from different RAW converters software. I don’t see the different from the JPEG images on imaging-resource. Seems someone is trying to make people believe that the quality of Sony is much better from marketing point-of-view.
You don’t see the difference on imaging resource? I guess I’ll have to have another look at that review because to me the Sony was clearly better- and really, it wasn’t even close. At the higher ISOs it’s not even close. I much prefer the looks of the EP2 and GF1- I think their layouts are much nicer. But really, the image quality is not even close.
at, I went back to the imaging resource review and you’re right, at least looking at the first page of the review. The differences are nowhere near this dramatic. It still appears to me the Sony Nex captures a nicer image but not this much nicer.
@FE
I have to admit that the RAW output from M4/3 will look like the attached image, but I cannot comment on Sony without a real product to see the actual RAW image. However, I have to admit that there is difference in high-ISO images, and I know that Sony can control noise level of their own sensor very well.
It’s hard to believe this image. Everyone knows that GH1 has a much better sensor than GF1. Yet the image shows a lot more noise (even though GH1’s shutter speed was slower).
If you look at the details, look at the resolution, this is easily seem on the letters MAS PORTELL EPL1 has much clearer resolution in detail but with more noise, alpha on the other hand looks smooth but blured in places.
I believe this is the trick Canon had on their latest machines that it has hardware noise reduction.
However, pixel pitch point of view Sony is bound to win but this is simply a exaggerated info.
okoccha – hmm? clearer resolution in detail? like… where exactly? Look at the red material on top, or the bottle neck – both have much more details in NEX than any other. It’s like adding a little bit of blur and much more noise to nex image.
16 Responses
I expected it to be better but really, this is no comparison. Panasonic and Olympus should be worried. I still think their cameras are much nicer looking (well, at least the EP2 and GF1) but when it comes to image quality they’re getting blown out of the water. At the current prices I can’t imagine too many people choosing a GF1 over this camera. I have a feeling we’re gonna start seeing some steep price cuts with micro 4/3.
what i call ownage!
Can you tell me where the image is from?
http://daten-lager.net/files/file1273566574NEX5-EPL1-GF1-GH1.jpg
RE: Can you tell me where the image is from?
The picture is supposed to be from Imaging Resource RAW files. OK so it shows more noise in raw files from m43, but gets me thinking is this the same thing as Sony did on A700, applying noise reduction or raw files?
If you look at the jpgs from IR, the difference is still there but a lot smaller.
E-PL1 ISO 3200:
http://75.126.132.154/PRODS/EPL1/FULLRES/EPL1hSLI3200NR2D.JPG
NEX-5 ISO 3200:
http://75.126.132.154/PRODS/NEX5/FULLRES/NEX5hSLI03200.JPG
It seems the photos above are from the RAW file, but you know it is unfair due to the result maybe very different from different RAW converters software. I don’t see the different from the JPEG images on imaging-resource. Seems someone is trying to make people believe that the quality of Sony is much better from marketing point-of-view.
… I don’t see the quality of JPEG images differs so much as the attached image…
You don’t see the difference on imaging resource? I guess I’ll have to have another look at that review because to me the Sony was clearly better- and really, it wasn’t even close. At the higher ISOs it’s not even close. I much prefer the looks of the EP2 and GF1- I think their layouts are much nicer. But really, the image quality is not even close.
at, I went back to the imaging resource review and you’re right, at least looking at the first page of the review. The differences are nowhere near this dramatic. It still appears to me the Sony Nex captures a nicer image but not this much nicer.
@FE
I have to admit that the RAW output from M4/3 will look like the attached image, but I cannot comment on Sony without a real product to see the actual RAW image. However, I have to admit that there is difference in high-ISO images, and I know that Sony can control noise level of their own sensor very well.
As former Cybershot F707 and present Micro 4/3 user I have to say that this is really beautiful camera!
Congratulations Alpha users, and welcome on the other side of the mirror 😉
I have found more info and samples here (google translation) for those who don’t understand polish…
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=pl&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Foptyczne.pl%2F2931-nowo%25C5%259B%25C4%2587-Sony_NEX-5_-_zdj%25C4%2599cia_przyk%25C5%2582adowe_i_pierwsze_wra%25C5%25BCenia.html&sl=pl&tl=en
Now, the new alpha firmware 🙂
It’s hard to believe this image. Everyone knows that GH1 has a much better sensor than GF1. Yet the image shows a lot more noise (even though GH1’s shutter speed was slower).
If you look at the details, look at the resolution, this is easily seem on the letters MAS PORTELL EPL1 has much clearer resolution in detail but with more noise, alpha on the other hand looks smooth but blured in places.
I believe this is the trick Canon had on their latest machines that it has hardware noise reduction.
However, pixel pitch point of view Sony is bound to win but this is simply a exaggerated info.
okoccha – hmm? clearer resolution in detail? like… where exactly? Look at the red material on top, or the bottle neck – both have much more details in NEX than any other. It’s like adding a little bit of blur and much more noise to nex image.
For a compact like NEX5 7 FPS shooting is impressive!