Tests show ups and downs of Four Thirds cameras

Panasonic's DMC-G1

(Credit: Panasonic)

Panasonic's $670 G1 and Olympus' $540 E-520 and $450 E-410--that show both the advantages and disadvantages of the Four Thirds standards the companies use.

The Four Thirds system governs image sensor sizes and the mounting mechanism for interchangeable lenses on the companies' SLR cameras, and the companies announced a new variation called Micro Four Thirds for smaller cameras that have SLRs' interchangeable lenses but not SLRs' "reflex" mirror, which directs light through an optical viewfinder before a shot is taken.

Four Thirds SLRs have a smaller sensor than lower-end SLRs from market leaders Nikon and Canon, which poses image quality challenges because there's less surface area to gather light. However, the sensor size is the same for Four Thirds and Micro Four Thirds, which means that cameras using the latter have a much larger sensor than typical compact cameras have.

The DxOMark Sensor test score shows these differences. The Panasonic G1 gets a score of 53 on the DxOMark Sensor test. That's a big notch above the 37.8 from the highest-end compact out there, Canon's $405 PowerShot G10, whose sensor is larger than most point-and-shoot cameras but still smaller than the G1's.

On the other hand, it's a step down from the 63.9 scored by the $600 Nikon D40X, a lower-end model that's among the smaller SLRs out there.

To summarize, the G1's sensor quality looks good, when compared to that of compact cameras, but not as good when compared to that of bulkier SLRs. It all depends on your frame of reference.

The DxOMark Sensor scores show how much better the sensor in Panasonic's G1 performs than Canon's Powershot G10, a more compact camera. The diminutive Nikon D40X SLR, a notch bigger than the G1, fares better. (Click to enlarge.)

(Credit: DxO Labs)

Things should get more interesting when Olympus launches its Micro Four Thirds models. Don't hold your breath, though: so far, Olympus has only showed prototypes, and the company told me that it won't be announcing any at the Photo Marketing Association (PMA) show in early March, as some have expected.

The comparisons are more direct when comparing lower-end SLRs, and here Olympus generally trails competitors by a bit. Its E-510 gets a score of 51.6, and its E-420 gets 55.8. Compare that to scores from a range of competitors that all have slightly larger sensors: 56.2 for the Nikon D40, 64.5 for the Nikon D60, 60.9 for the Sony Alpha A100, 65.4 for the Sony Alpha A350, 66 for the Pentax K200D, 61.6 for the Canon Rebel XS, and 60.6 for the Canon Rebel XSi.

Note, of course, that sensor size and sensor quality, while important, comprise only one factor. These scores don't account for price, autofocus, durability, lens selection, and many other factors that also weigh into a camera's overall merit.

[gerrrg]

The D40X (X being the important part) is one of the best bargains out there on the DSLR market, with 10 MP over the D40 with only 6 MP.

[carguy622]

Stephen: The Panasonic Lumix LX3 received a score of 39.1 which makes it the highest rated compact. Sorry to be a pain, but I thought I'd mention it, (Yes, I own an LX3 and love it).

[kyle5434]

I've hitched my wagon to Olympus and FourThirds, and I have no regrets. The SuperSonic Wave Filter for keeping dust off the sensor (mocked initially by competitors and now copied - somewhat poorly - by them) is amazing, the mid-level Zuiko glass is outstanding and affordable, and I find that the 4/3 ratio yields the most flexibility for cropping to a variety of print sizes.

I've given up on being a measurebator - microanalyzing resolution charts, measuring noise levels, pixel-peeping, unzipping my metaphorical fly to show that my camera has more megapixels than yours. Photography should primarily be about learning to see - interesting or compelling scenes, shapes, lines, patters, colors. My skills as a photographer have surprisingly little to do with what camera I use. I primarily shoot with an E-300, a model released in January 2005. It doesn't have the latest pixel count and features of newer DSLRs, and I couldn't care less. For now I'm focusing on basic photography skills. No doubt I'll want to upgrade at some point in the future, but I have to say it's been truly enjoyable to step off the "latest and greatest" treadmill.

[invenor]

Re: kyle5434 and his "measurebator" and "Metaphorical flys" -- I find him both a telling, clever and cempetent writer -- and I'm virtually certain than he's "right on the money" with the fact that the Camera needs a competent "photographer" in order to make great photographs.

While "all things being equal" -- is a common phrase -- ALL things are NEVER equal. And while great, greater or greateset (at the moment) cameras can often assure better exposures, and sharper focus -- where, how, when and why the photrapher shoots from that place at that time -- can make even the greatest camera produce pedestrian photographs. All this means that a good or great or greatest photographer -- can make even the most mediocre camera take pictures like the

And I'm also pretty sure -- reading his statement above -- that his pictures are probably NOT run of the mill anymore than his language is.

Kudos to Kyle and I hope I have a chance to see some of his photographic work in the future.

George Margolin -- former (VERY FORMER) Technical Editor of Popular Photography Magazine -- and professioinal inventor of video, digital and motion picture systems.
www.netsurfernews.com

[William Crow]

Instead of buying a new digital every few years, I've stayed with my film camera. In the long run its cheaper to use.