 |
| Sony a6500 on the left, Lumix G95 on the right |
Earlier this year (2019) the editors of Digital Photography Review interviewed representatives of several camera makers.
The brief quotes below from the transcripts of these interviews are relevant to the comparison which forms the substance of this post.
A senior Sony representative said……
……..”Sony is a technology company that provides technology in which customers may find value. I want our technology to be the reason people are attracted to Sony.
……..our products contain advanced technology, and advanced technology make [makes] customers happy to shoot. I want [Sony] to become a company that drives technology - that’s the kind of message I want to send.”
In another interview Panasonic representatives were asked
“What is it you think Panasonic can uniquely bring?”
And the answer was
……….”Firstly, cameraness: the interface, in terms of both hardware and software [making the device feel like a camera]. If you look at competitor models, they're very innovative cameras but they're having some negative comments in the market that the grips are smaller than expected or that the interface is [too] cutting-edge, leaving people confused when they first try to use them. We listened to a lot of customers' feedback to create the S-series, so we designed the position of buttons, shape of buttons and also the menu settings accordingly. We're proud of this cameraness and the interface, first of all.”
So there you have it: Top priority for Sony is the technology while for Panasonic, camera-ness and the interface come first.
In this post I have chosen the Lumix G95 from Panasonic as a representative of the Micro Four Thirds (21.5mm diagonal) sensor format and the Sony a6500 for the APS-C (28mm diagonal) format.
Nobody lends me cameras for review. I buy them just like any other consumer. I have no relationship with any person or organisation which makes or sells photo equipment. I have no bias toward any brand or format. I do however favour gear which provides a satisfying user experience. This is the main consideration for me in rating equipment as long as it makes good pictures which most current model cameras can easily do.
You might be surprised at just how little difference there can be in say, a 40 x 50 cm print between an image originating in a full frame camera and one coming from a small sensor compact. One can do a lot these days with Camera Raw and Photoshop.
The G95 is Panasonic’s latest mid range 21.5mm sensor model and the a6500 although two years old is still Sony’s top E mount camera with the 28mm sensor.
Both cameras are pitched at the enthusiast/expert user who wants excellent image quality and a high level of features and capability without the cost of a professional kit.
I tested the G95 with the kit 12-60mm f3.5-5.6 lens and also the Pana/Leica 15mm f1.7 prime.
The a6500 came with the kit E 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 zoom to which I added an E 20mm f2.8 pancake.
Current prices, subject to frequent discounts and deals from time to time have the G95 kit on initial release at AUD1499 and the a6500 about two years into its product cycle in a kit with the E 18-135mm lens at AUD1949, making the Sony significantly more expensive with the price gap likely to increase as the G95 settles into its product cycle.
By the way, notwithstanding my introductory quotes from Sony and Panasonic representatives, I found that both cameras are absolutely loaded with hi tech features for both stills and video.
Both have a very similar list of specifications and capabilities. Of course the makers and to some extent those who sell cameras like to concentrate on the differences but the two have more in common than you might think from reading published reviews.
Both are mirrorless interchangeable lens models with in-body-image-stabiliser, vari-angle monitor (with different implementation) , EVF, twin dial controls (but implemented in a very different fashion) and a capacity for stills or video at a high level of capability.
Both are state of the (current) art for mid range ILCs.
On paper the a6500 has more to catch the eye. It has the larger sensor with more pixels, faster continuous drive with continuous autofocus, bigger buffer, phase detect plus contrast detect autofocus and various tech features with three letter acronyms like BSI and XGA and LSI.
The G95 and other recent Panasonic cameras has the interesting 4K photo feature not found on Sony cameras.
With all that hi-tech going for it you might expect the a6500 would be easily the better camera but I found that the G95 is much nicer to use and in the process produces results which I could only distinguish from those coming off the a6500 by pixel peeping at high magnification on a hi res screen.
To test still photo image quality I photographed test charts, close ups, people, urban and rural landscapes and tested image output at low and high ISO settings.
In summary I found that both cameras are capable of very high image quality with a wealth of detail, good rendition of highlight and shadow detail and good pictures in bright light or low light.
With pixel peeping at 100% on screen the a6500s larger sensor with more pixels can deliver a bit more information and a bit less luminance noise.
At high ISO settings the a6500 delivers a bit more detail and slightly less (about 1/3-1/2 EV step) luminance noise than the G95. This surprised me as I had imagined the advantage to the a6500 would be greater.
However my findings are consistent with those at Photons to photos which show the G9 (the G95 is said to use the same sensor) has the same DR as the a6500 at low ISO settings, the a6500 being slightly better at high ISOs.
When output via a print or at commonly utilised sizes for internet transmission these small technical advantages get buried in the picture itself.
Matters related to the subject and to user competence are much more relevant to the final result.
The a6500 does have a performance advantage over the G95, at least with regard to continuous focus on moving subjects at high frame rates .
On my tests the a6500 can follow focus on moving cars at 9 frames per second with live view on each frame and very brief EVF blackout with 95% of frames sharp. The buffer can accommodate more than 100 RAW+ JPG files before the frame rate slows.
The G95 can follow focus on the cars at 6 frames per second with live view on every frame with a buffer of 30 frames using RAW+JPG. EVF blackout after each shot is perceptibly longer than the a6500. The G95 is by no means disgraced, it also recorded a 95% rate of sharply in focus frames.
This is not the camera I would use if my primary photographic purpose was sport/action/BIF and similar but for occasional use with these subjects it does quite well.
So the a6500 is better for sport/action however at this point we run into one of the big downsides of the Sony E 28mm system which is a serious lack of dedicated crop sensor lenses.
It seems to me the best way to fully utilise the high continuous drive capability of the a6500 (and a6300 and a6400) for sport/action/wildlife and similar is to mount one of the big, heavy and expensive FE long zooms. These are the FE100-400mm, FE 70-200mm f2.8 and FE 70-200mm f4.
But this produces quite a mismatch between the tiny a6500 body and the very large zooms.
Update: Now we have a FE 600mm f4 and a FE 100-600mm f5.6-6.3, two more big white FE lenses for sport/action.
If I wanted to use an ILC for sport/action I would probably not use either the G95 or the a6500.
In Sony world I think the A9 would be a better match for the big zooms, at a higher price of course.
In M43 world I would use the G9 and select from the extensive range of high quality zooms and primes just made for sport/action work.
The camera which I actually do use for sport/action/birds/wildlife is the Sony RX10.4 which delivers even higher performance than the a6xxx series and has a 24-600mm (equivalent) f2.4-f4 lens of very high quality built right into the camera. This thing is an absolute bargain at around AUD1949 today.
While I am on the subject the M43 system has a huge range of lenses available from Panasonic, Olympus and third party suppliers. These cover everything from ultra wide to super tele and from budget to high price offerings. There is a lens for everyone and every purpose in the M43 system.
And most of them (all those from Panasonic and Olympus) have been specifically designed to match the 21.5mm sensor.
Sony E mount (APS-C) owners are not so lucky. Most of the dedicated crop sensor lenses are from the old NEX 12 Mpx days and are just not adequate for the newer 24mm sensors. So the enthusiast E mount user soon finds him or her self either stuck with outdated consumer zooms or forced to use FE lenses several of which are very good but I have to wonder if maybe the best way to use those lenses would be to save up and get one of the full frame bodies for which they were designed.
Looking at the specific lenses which I used for this comparison:
The Lumix 12-60mm f3.5-5.6 is a very nice all purpose optic which is a great complement to any mid range M43 body. It is compact, moderately priced, sharp at all focal lengths right from the widest aperture, with fast accurate autofocus. I found this one to be just as good within its smaller aperture range as the larger and more expensive Leica 12-60mm f2.8-4.
The Leica 15mm f1.7 is a standout small prime, sharp right from the widest aperture. It makes a very fine street and documentary lens indoors or outdoors.
The Sony E 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 is a relatively new model which complements the a6xxx cameras very well. It gets good reviews with some Sony experts saying it is better than some of the higher priced zooms. My copy delivered very sharp pictures in the center and left side of the frame but was soft towards the right side rather spoiling the experience.
The E 20mm f2.8 pancake lens has been around for years and is often recommended as a good walkaround/street lens on the a6xxx bodies. My copy was sharp in the center at all apertures becoming so at the edges at around f5.6, but encountered the focussing issue described below.
Now I want to say a few words about focussing on still subjects. We know that the a6xxx models do a great job on moving things. I assumed therefore that the a6500 would have no trouble at all focussing reliably on static subjects.
I was therefore greatly surprised to discover that the E20mm f2.8 sometimes mis-focussed on very easy subjects like a test chart and several landscape scenes. Initially I thought I had just gotten a very bad copy of the lens. But some good frames showed that the lens was actually quite sharp. There were two problems
* With landscape type subjects the lens would focus much closer than the position of the AF frame.
* With stand-up type subjects focus was inconsistent particularly at small apertures (high f-numbers), sharp on one frame and blurred on the next with no change to settings.
The E 18-135mm zoom was less prone to these problems but I found it too sometimes got the focus point wrong with high f numbers and a landscape type subject.
I installed the latest 1.06 firmware for the camera, cleaned the lens and camera side contacts and trawled through the menus in an effort to find the cause of the problem.
And so I came upon [Live View Display Setting Effect ON/OFF] Like most things in the Sony menu system this one is buried well down in the hierarchy, at Menu>Camera Settings 2>Display/Auto review2>Live View Display.
[Setting Effect] refers to whether the viewfinder does (desirable for natural light photography) or does not (which may be desirable for studio type flash) display in live view the effect of + or – exposure bias. The effect on depth of field of lens aperture is also displayed although this is less readily assessed on crop sensor models than on full frame models.
This led to my discovery of Sony stop down focussing. For many years camera makers have known that the way to accurate focussing is to focus (and meter) with the lens at its widest aperture then close the aperture to the set level just before exposure. This is the way Panasonic does things.
But when [Setting Effect] is ON the a6500 will focus at the set aperture and if that is f16 the camera will try to focus at f16 with both the lenses which I tested. I suspect that may be one of the issues behind the focus problems which I encountered.
The behaviour of various Sony cameras with respect to the relationship between [Setting Effect] and stop down focussing is not uniform. The RX10.4 for instance stops down to about f5.6 for focussing if the f number is greater than f5.6 when the [Setting Effect] is On or Off.
I suspect that Sony’s engineers may have gotten themselves into a bit of a situation around this issue and probably need to look at re-programming some of their body-lens combinations.
By the way I do not recall seeing a reference to this in any published review of the a6500. I have seen a few passing mentions on user forums but with little follow up.
I should say something about video although I am a video novice and comfortable with that. The a6500 has better video specs particularly in 4K.
Some reviewers have commented adversely that the G95 applies a crop in 4K. However it uses the full width of the sensor for FHD which is more useful for vloggers anyway.
In addition the G95 has a mic jack, headphone jack and the monitor can face forward which is not the case on the a6500.
My somewhat primitive tests showed that both cameras make good 1920x1080 video with little that my inexpert eyes can see to distinguish between them.
I tried some back-and-forth focus testing and found both performed about the same with regard to speed and precision. I did notice however that the G95 can produce a little wobble as it confirms focus. Some reviewers have expressed negative comments about this.
The most striking difference between the a6500 and the G95 is the user interface, the user experience and the ergonomics.
This is where the differences in corporate philosophy which I quoted at the top of the post really play out in the product.
The information interface includes setup items like menus and the allocation of functions to the various dials and buttons.
Panasonic’s menu system is more coherent than Sony’s with a My Menu which is handy. The main issue I have with the Sony menus is that despite an attempt to cluster items into meaningful categories this requires further work. We still have like items scattered about and unlike items grouped together.
For instance I was unhappy about my viewing experience with the EVF which led me to find items relevant to viewfinder appearance in six different places spread across the menu system.
The operation interface is about using the device. The G95 is markedly more coherent in this regard.
The G95 has a much larger, fatter, more comfortable and secure handle.
The G95 EVF provides a much more natural viewing experience than that in the a6500 which especially in bright light takes on a disconcerting pixelated appearance despite all menu options being set to maximum capability. This is a reminder that judging camera features by specification can be misleading.
The G95 provides a much more streamlined operating experience than the a6500 with fewer actions each less complex required to make changes to focus and exposure parameters in Capture Phase of use. On the G95 the front and rear dials are just where my fingers want to find them and have just the right haptic characteristics for smooth reliable operation.
I will detail these matters in separate posts explaining my ergonomic scores for each camera.
Suffice to say for this post that the G95 feels like and is, a well evolved coherent product which is a pleasure to use. It is not brilliant in any particular capability but is very good at everything which one might reasonably expect a mid range ILC to do. It offers the user a high level of all-round competence with no nasty downsides.
The a6500 on the other hand feels like a half finished project, flashy/brilliant in some abilities but borderline unusable in others with an interface which needs a complete root-and-branch redesign.
The list of things which I think Panasonic needs to do to improve the G95 is short. Apart from the obvious wish list of more DR and lower high ISO noise which you could say might apply to any camera it includes upgrading auto ISO to the Sony system, adding a thumb stick and using the faster processor from the G9.
The list of things I think Sony needs to do to improve the a6xxx series including the 6500 includes almost everything except the sensor and processor. The body shape, handle, EVF, monitor, controls, menus, the focus mode options mess,….the list goes on….
Did you know that the only way to change the size of the AF area on the a6500 is via a menu ? This is ridiculous. Each AF area size is a different mode. What ???
On the G95 I press the rim of the third dial to activate the AF area and change its size simply by turning the same dial. Easy-peasy.
I can’t finish this section without special mention about the memory card. The a6500 (and also the RX10.4 by the way, it seems to be a Sony thing) make it ridiculously difficult to extract the card. This is the kind of inattention to the detail of usability which can get really irritating after a while.
Yes I know it’s no big deal but those little annoyances accumulate and the a6500 provides lots of them.
Other manufacturers
The other maker of micro Four Thirds cameras and lenses is Olympus. These cameras have their fervently enthusiastic supporters of whom I am not one. Olympus’ main business is making hi-tech medical equipment like endoscopes and microscopes. Cameras are a small part of the business, maintained, I suspect for sentimental reasons, not any prospect of profit.
Olympus’ camera division appears to do reasonably well when it sticks to the Olympus long established trademark characteristic which is smallness. About ten years ago Olympus had the precursor to the Micro Four Thirds system. This was the Four Thirds DSLR system using the same sized sensor as M43 does today.
They went along for a while with small then decided to go big and professional and that failed.
It appears they are doing the same thing again with the OMD-E-M1X great big huge pro camera project. We shall see how that works out. The problem for Olympus is they only have M43 and a well regarded waterproof compact and that’s all there is. I think they have backed themselves into a corner from which escape could be difficult.
Who else makes APS-C interchangeable lens cameras ?
Canon has the altogether underwhelming M system with no cross compatibility between the M and full frame RF systems. Thus the M system looks increasingly like a dead end to me in the evolutionary sense.
Nikon only has DSLRs in the APS-C ILC sector, no mirrorless. I guess they will string this line out for as long as customers keep buying enough product to keep the project operating.
Leica invented the L mount which is now the basis of the L Mount Alliance between Leica, Panasonic and Sigma. The interesting thing about the L mount is that it is very suitable for both full frame and APS-C sensor cameras.
Leica already has both full frame and APS-C 28mm cameras which use that mount.
Panasonic has stated it will not make an APS-C model using the L mount but…………it would not be so difficult and I suspect that if M43 sales fall away Panasonic could well be tempted to re-think this position especially if Sony ever decides to get serious about its APS-C line.
This would allow Panasonic, like Sony to run just one lens mount and that has got to be a very appealing idea in the era of falling sales.
Ricoh/Pentax still has a few APS-C DSLRs and has been recorded in interviews as hoping (…dreaming….hallucinating….?) that customers will inexplicably come back to DSLRs from their mirrorless ILCs.
Sigma has been a substantial supplier of lenses for Sony APS-C cameras in particular and has indicated an interest in making its own APS-C ILC cameras.
The only camera maker which has made the 28mm APS-C sensor the basis of most of its output is Fujifilm which has numerous mirrorless interchangeable lens bodies and a substantial range of good quality lenses all devoted to the 28mm format.
Unfortunately Fuji insists on bestowing most of its bodies with a quirky, almost comically incoherent control system and keeps on putting the X-trans filter in front of its sensors, providing no demonstrated image quality advantage at all. Vive la difference.
Summary
Right now the M43 system provides a more thoughtfully evolved, coherent platform than any of the APS-C variants with camera bodies providing an excellent user experience and much more extensive lens support into the bargain.
However that could change if Sony ever decides to get serious about its currently under-supported crop sensor division and/or Panasonic decides to get into the APS-C game and/or Fujifilm can ever bring its corporate self to produce cameras with mainstream controls and sensor architecture.
Canon and Nikon would appear at this stage to have limited their ability to engage in the APS-C realm by failing to provide a one mount upgrade path from APS-C to full frame.
My personal take on all this ?
The exercise of using and comparing the interchangeable lens cameras referred to in this post has convinced me, again, (I keep discovering the same things over and over) that fixed lens cameras are the way forward for me. With my Lumix FZ1000.2 or Sony RX10.4 I can with a bit of ingenuity do almost anything that any APS-C or M43 multi-lens kit can do and I never have to change lenses.
This notion will form the basis of the third instalment of the format wars saga on this blog: Bridge cams vs ILCs.