I think that you would actually get better data points if the shots were done at the same time. A span between shots of a few weeks makes it more difficult to see actual results. More dust in the air, a more intense light, many things can affect the quality beyond the cameras and settings. I tried to enlarge the image, and it won't. Don't know if it's tribe or the shots, but i could only see them displayed size.

What math did you use to insure that both lens were set for equivalent? Even a small amount of error could account for your results. I would be interested in seeing them shot at the same time, without a tripod move, just switch camera and shoot. And both the whole image as well as an enlargement would help on evaluation.

Interesting shots, I like the perspective.

ww,

Very interesting. I was able to view the larger photo, and see. I'll describe what I see, I hope useful.

One question on procedure first: Was the exposure set exactly the same, or metered then set for EV0? Either the shot with the E3 had more light from below, or else somebody cleaned those yellow lights or boxes in frame center. The Nikon D200 looks much dirtier on the day that photo was taken, or it might have been less well lit from below, compared with the Olympus W3.

The E3/lens might appear sharper, but I'm wondering if this is possibly just better contrast, hence edge detail? The blacks on the Olympus E3 are velvety dark, reminds me of a shot after processing through Noise Ninja. The D200 by comparison has very visible classic Bayes sensor grain.

For the Olympus E3, I sense a very slight blue shift, compared to Nikon D200. The "W" sign at the top of the building, and the hotel/theatre sign, are both distinctly more blue than for the Nikon D200. Also, on the Olympus E3 shot, there appears to be a paler or blue-green rendering for the "Broadway" sign.

The Nikon D200 held the full tone range better though, IMHO. There's a lighted sign at frame left in both shots, and despite the bright lights impinging in the direct view, the Nikon shows color on that sign. For the Olympus E3 in that same area (albeit a slightly different view) the sign is completely washed out, and at the top edge of it, there appears to be several chromatic aberration.

Wrt to the apparently clean blacks on the Olympus E3, IMHO, in the shot with the Nikon, the main direct incident light appears to have a very slight cant wrt level in the frame ... that might be the source of extra glare, which would read as noise. Whereas, for the Olympus E3 shot, that same light appear to be truly in-axis, wrt the frame (e.g. zero degrees of horizontal angle, forming clean coplanarity). This light (or camera, possibly) in the Nikon D200 shot does not appear coplanar with the image plane of the camera .. so with a variety of refractive surfaces being traversed, glare is a given ... and that's what shows up as yellowish black grain. It might be that the Olympus would do a similar thing, given similar bright and apparently off-axis light. If the E3 were to experience glare, then contrast would be reduced rather than enhanced, thus leading to a less crisply sharp shot. Perhaps just the glare is what is making the Nikon D200 appear less sharp?

Really appreciate your sharing this. You have done a fabulous test. I wonder about these things all the time myself, esp. the imaging issues over the 4/3 system. But, per Scott's suggestion, a very slightly more rigorous test might be more revealing?

For example, have a marked reference spot, obtained using a plumb line drawn down from the tripod, and then use of a level on the tripod, to assure that both cameras are taking a shot in the same plane; and of course doing both shots with both cameras within a short time interval.

Blessings and Light,
M