FF NOT Better than m43rds for Image Quality and DoF control

Started Sep 18, 2012 | Discussions
Landscapephoto99
Senior MemberPosts: 2,454
Like?
FF NOT Better than m43rds for Image Quality and DoF control
Sep 18, 2012

Regarding all of the "Are Tempted by the Cheap Price of FF" posts I see: The real disadvantage of FF has nothing to do with price, but bulk, weight and visibility. I see it mainly becoming a studio tool in the future.

1. There is no difference between the DR of FF and m43rds. In fact the E-M5 and likely the new GH3 is better than most FF cameras.

2. As far as high ISO IQ, the 2 stops deeper DoF on m43rds means in low light that I can just open the aperature wide open and shoot, not worrying about having to have a razor think DoF putting most of the scene out of focus. Is FF 2 stops better at high ISO, say FF ISO 12,800 compared to m43rds ISO 3200, than m43rds? I don't think so.

3. IBIS means that I can shoot with a fast prime at incredibly slow shutter speeds so as to not have to crank up the ISO. Think about shooting at f1.4 at 1/6 of a second hand held.

4. As far as DoF control: Yes, FF offers shallower DoF at an equivalent aperature, though with .95 lenses for m43rds, DoF should be shallow enough for most. By contrast, there are at least as many circumstances where greater DoF is an advantage as in macro / low light photography.

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
Everdog
Senior MemberPosts: 4,837
Like?
Smaller sensors have better technology too
In reply to Landscapephoto99, Sep 18, 2012

You will get a bunch of replies from clueless people who claim you will get 2 stops more noise with M43 over FF. The problem is they are ASSuming the sensor tech is exactly the same, which it is usually not.

Don't believe me? Compare the output of a tiny RX100 sensor to a Canon 5D. Heck, compare the RX100 to the NEX 7 at ISO1600! Here are some 100% crops...

Remember wider DoF means more of the image is sharper. You can always soften in post, but it is very difficult/impossible to fix an out of focus subject.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ridethelight
Regular MemberPosts: 192Gear list
Like?
Re: Smaller sensors have better technology too
In reply to Everdog, Sep 18, 2012

Don't get post's like this, FF has it's place and if it's getting cheaper,great .

 Ridethelight's gear list:Ridethelight's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Sony a5000 Canon EF 35mm f/2.0 Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Sean Nelson
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,919
Like?
Re: Smaller sensors have better technology too
In reply to Everdog, Sep 18, 2012

Everdog wrote:

You will get a bunch of replies from clueless people who claim you will get 2 stops more noise with M43 over FF. The problem is they are ASSuming the sensor tech is exactly the same, which it is usually not.

But sensor tech will change for FF as well. It tends not to change as fast because FF sensor production is much more expensive and so they try to stretch the life of FF sensors over multiple generations so as to minimize the unit costs. But it does inevitably improve.

A larger sensor of equivalent technology will always have more imaging flexibility. Trying to argue that this isn't true is just silly. The real issue is what each photographer's needs are. Technology has advanced and for a lot of people smaller sensors are now capable of doing everything they need and more. In the future this will be even more true.

That doesn't make larger sensors obsolete, it just makes them more specialized.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 21,952
Like?
Well, yes, it is.
In reply to Landscapephoto99, Sep 18, 2012

Landscapephoto99 wrote:

Regarding all of the "Are Tempted by the Cheap Price of FF" posts I see: The real disadvantage of FF has nothing to do with price, but bulk, weight and visibility. I see it mainly becoming a studio tool in the future.

1. There is no difference between the DR of FF and m43rds. In fact the E-M5 and likely the new GH3 is better than most FF cameras.

It depends on the models you are comparing. The D800 is the DR and IQ king, whereas the 5D3 lags with respect to DR.

2. As far as high ISO IQ, the 2 stops deeper DoF on m43rds means in low light that I can just open the aperature wide open and shoot, not worrying about having to have a razor think DoF putting most of the scene out of focus. Is FF 2 stops better at high ISO, say FF ISO 12,800 compared to m43rds ISO 3200, than m43rds? I don't think so.

Well, there's what you think, vs what the case actually is. Of course, once again, it depends on the particular bodies being compared. However, for equally efficient sensors, absolutely, FF has a half the noise as mFT for the same exposure.

3. IBIS means that I can shoot with a fast prime at incredibly slow shutter speeds so as to not have to crank up the ISO. Think about shooting at f1.4 at 1/6 of a second hand held.

Big advantage for static scenes where a tripod is not possible.

4. As far as DoF control: Yes, FF offers shallower DoF at an equivalent aperature, though with .95 lenses for m43rds, DoF should be shallow enough for most. By contrast, there are at least as many circumstances where greater DoF is an advantage as in macro / low light photography.

How many f/0.95 lenses does mFT have? Even then, it's equivalent to f/2 on FF which is still a stop short of significantly less expensive f/1.4 primes. But when it comes to zooms, the gap is larger.

Of course, please don't misinterpret all this as saying FF is "better" than mFT. But it is to say that the D800, for example, outperforms, in terms of IQ, any mFT system, just like one would expect.

If mFT works for you -- that's just great. For some, FF is the way to go. For others, the RX100 is the obvious choice. Still others think that the newer phone cams represent the best balance, all things considered.

But denying the obvious IQ advantages that FF enjoys over mFT is as silly as denying the obvious size advantages that mFT enjoys over FF.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 21,952
Like?
Re: Smaller sensors have better technology too
In reply to Everdog, Sep 18, 2012

Everdog wrote:

You will get a bunch of replies from clueless people who claim you will get 2 stops more noise with M43 over FF. The problem is they are ASSuming the sensor tech is exactly the same, which it is usually not.

Don't believe me? Compare the output of a tiny RX100 sensor to a Canon 5D. Heck, compare the RX100 to the NEX 7 at ISO1600! Here are some 100% crops...

The NEX7 pic obviously has less noise, and the sensors in the D800 and D4 as efficient as the other sensors. It's specifically Canon sensors that are lagging, not FF.

Remember wider DoF means more of the image is sharper. You can always soften in post, but it is very difficult/impossible to fix an out of focus subject.

If the FF photographer chooses to shoot the same DOF as the mFT shooter, they can do so by giving up their noise advantage. However, there are many times when the more shallow DOF with less noise is more appealing than the deeper DOF with more noise, even if the shallow DOF per se is not desirable.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jim stirling
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,654Gear list
Like?
Re: Smaller sensors have better technology too
In reply to Everdog, Sep 18, 2012

Everdog wrote:

You will get a bunch of replies from clueless people who claim you will get 2 stops more noise with M43 over FF. The problem is they are ASSuming the sensor tech is exactly the same, which it is usually not.

Where would folk get that idea ? Try looking at the E-M5 RAW files with NR turned off not as nice as you imagine. A common problem here is that folk pass judgement on cameras they have never used. All the various systems have their pros and cons none are perfect for everyone so just use what you want and don't waste time worrying about what others use.

Having used the D800 for a wee while now I think for all systems the future is high megapixel counts the flexibility the extra detail gives is a real winner.

Jim

 jim stirling's gear list:jim stirling's gear list
Olympus C-8080 Wide Zoom Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 Nikon D800 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 +13 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
kermitG9
Contributing MemberPosts: 701
Like?
Re: Well, yes, it is.
In reply to Great Bustard, Sep 18, 2012

Great Bustard wrote:

Landscapephoto99 wrote:

Regarding all of the "Are Tempted by the Cheap Price of FF" posts I see: The real disadvantage of FF has nothing to do with price, but bulk, weight and visibility. I see it mainly becoming a studio tool in the future.

1. There is no difference between the DR of FF and m43rds. In fact the E-M5 and likely the new GH3 is better than most FF cameras.

When I see the posterisation that my E-M5 is exhibiting at high ISO (800 and above), then I have to seriously question that statement.. Or people are so biased..

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Macx
Senior MemberPosts: 1,251Gear list
Like?
Re: Smaller sensors have better technology too
In reply to Everdog, Sep 18, 2012

The larger the sensor, the more light it gets. That's simple physics. Because of this, FF is always going to have an inherent advantage. Now, you can argue that this advantage isn't big enough to matter compared to the disadvantage of larger and heavier bodies and lenses, and I would personally agree with you. Others won't agree with us, and that's why some buy FF cameras instead of cameras with smaller sensors.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Macx
Senior MemberPosts: 1,251Gear list
Like?
Re: Well, yes, it is.
In reply to kermitG9, Sep 18, 2012

kermitG9 wrote:

When I see the posterisation that my E-M5 is exhibiting at high ISO (800 and above), then I have to seriously question that statement.. Or people are so biased..

Under what circumstances do you experience posterisation? In my experience I have plenty of dynamic range even at high ISO with the E-M5. It sounds like faulty equipment or ...dare I say user error?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Cane
Senior MemberPosts: 3,577
Like?
Re: FF NOT Better than m43rds for Image Quality and DoF control
In reply to Landscapephoto99, Sep 18, 2012

Landscapephoto99 wrote:

Regarding all of the "Are Tempted by the Cheap Price of FF" posts I see: The real disadvantage of FF has nothing to do with price, but bulk, weight and visibility. I see it mainly becoming a studio tool in the future.

1. There is no difference between the DR of FF and m43rds. In fact the E-M5 and likely the new GH3 is better than most FF cameras.

2. As far as high ISO IQ, the 2 stops deeper DoF on m43rds means in low light that I can just open the aperature wide open and shoot, not worrying about having to have a razor think DoF putting most of the scene out of focus. Is FF 2 stops better at high ISO, say FF ISO 12,800 compared to m43rds ISO 3200, than m43rds? I don't think so.

3. IBIS means that I can shoot with a fast prime at incredibly slow shutter speeds so as to not have to crank up the ISO. Think about shooting at f1.4 at 1/6 of a second hand held.

4. As far as DoF control: Yes, FF offers shallower DoF at an equivalent aperature, though with .95 lenses for m43rds, DoF should be shallow enough for most. By contrast, there are at least as many circumstances where greater DoF is an advantage as in macro / low light photography.

Did you convince yourself yet?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jim stirling
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,654Gear list
Like?
Re: Well, yes, it is.
In reply to kermitG9, Sep 18, 2012

kermitG9 wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Landscapephoto99 wrote:

Regarding all of the "Are Tempted by the Cheap Price of FF" posts I see: The real disadvantage of FF has nothing to do with price, but bulk, weight and visibility. I see it mainly becoming a studio tool in the future.

1. There is no difference between the DR of FF and m43rds. In fact the E-M5 and likely the new GH3 is better than most FF cameras.

When I see the posterisation that my E-M5 is exhibiting at high ISO (800 and above), then I have to seriously question that statement.. Or people are so biased..

Well said though you are setting yourself up for some abuse by threatening the forum deity
Jim

 jim stirling's gear list:jim stirling's gear list
Olympus C-8080 Wide Zoom Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 Nikon D800 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 +13 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jim stirling
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,654Gear list
Like?
Re: FF NOT Better than m43rds for Image Quality and DoF control
In reply to Cane, Sep 18, 2012

Cane wrote:

Landscapephoto99 wrote:

Regarding all of the "Are Tempted by the Cheap Price of FF" posts I see: The real disadvantage of FF has nothing to do with price, but bulk, weight and visibility. I see it mainly becoming a studio tool in the future.

1. There is no difference between the DR of FF and m43rds. In fact the E-M5 and likely the new GH3 is better than most FF cameras.

2. As far as high ISO IQ, the 2 stops deeper DoF on m43rds means in low light that I can just open the aperature wide open and shoot, not worrying about having to have a razor think DoF putting most of the scene out of focus. Is FF 2 stops better at high ISO, say FF ISO 12,800 compared to m43rds ISO 3200, than m43rds? I don't think so.

3. IBIS means that I can shoot with a fast prime at incredibly slow shutter speeds so as to not have to crank up the ISO. Think about shooting at f1.4 at 1/6 of a second hand held.

4. As far as DoF control: Yes, FF offers shallower DoF at an equivalent aperature, though with .95 lenses for m43rds, DoF should be shallow enough for most. By contrast, there are at least as many circumstances where greater DoF is an advantage as in macro / low light photography.

Did you convince yourself yet?

I have often thought that is the case , perhaps if you chant "the E-M5 is as good as the D800" often enough you will believe it , it won't be true but you will believe it.
Jim

 jim stirling's gear list:jim stirling's gear list
Olympus C-8080 Wide Zoom Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 Nikon D800 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 +13 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jim stirling
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,654Gear list
Like?
Re: Smaller sensors have better technology too
In reply to Sean Nelson, Sep 18, 2012

Sean Nelson wrote:

That doesn't make larger sensors obsolete, it just makes them more specialized.

I think that FF cameras are and always were a niche product with their real strengths being at the extremes .as an example I used to shoot in low light a lot and when I got the D3 and later D3s it was a huge advantage. Same for those who like shallow DOF portraits etc or want higher resolution and DR. The current best FF sensor is the D800 and it has an excellent level of performance.
Jim

 jim stirling's gear list:jim stirling's gear list
Olympus C-8080 Wide Zoom Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 Nikon D800 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 +13 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jim stirling
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,654Gear list
Like?
Re: Smaller sensors have better technology too
In reply to Great Bustard, Sep 18, 2012

Great Bustard wrote:

Everdog wrote:

You will get a bunch of replies from clueless people who claim you will get 2 stops more noise with M43 over FF. The problem is they are ASSuming the sensor tech is exactly the same, which it is usually not.

Don't believe me? Compare the output of a tiny RX100 sensor to a Canon 5D. Heck, compare the RX100 to the NEX 7 at ISO1600! Here are some 100% crops...

The NEX7 pic obviously has less noise, and the sensors in the D800 and D4 as efficient as the other sensors. It's specifically Canon sensors that are lagging, not FF.

Remember wider DoF means more of the image is sharper. You can always soften in post, but it is very difficult/impossible to fix an out of focus subject.

If the FF photographer chooses to shoot the same DOF as the mFT shooter, they can do so by giving up their noise advantage. However, there are many times when the more shallow DOF with less noise is more appealing than the deeper DOF with more noise, even if the shallow DOF per se is not desirable.

Hi GB,

as you have suggested in the past I am a convert to high MP sensors with the D800 the extra level of detail allows for better NR and provides far better detail at low ISO it is a win win in fact.
Jim

 jim stirling's gear list:jim stirling's gear list
Olympus C-8080 Wide Zoom Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 Nikon D800 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 +13 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
OniMirage
Contributing MemberPosts: 990
Like?
Re: FF NOT Better than m43rds for Image Quality and DoF control
In reply to Landscapephoto99, Sep 18, 2012

There are some real advantages to FF just as there are on m4/3. They are both equally valid when used properly and if one has an advantage where you need it then it makes no sense to fight it.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jim stirling
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,654Gear list
Like?
Re: FF NOT Better than m43rds for Image Quality and DoF control
In reply to OniMirage, Sep 18, 2012

OniMirage wrote:

There are some real advantages to FF just as there are on m4/3. They are both equally valid when used properly and if one has an advantage where you need it then it makes no sense to fight it.

That is completely correct for me I combine my FF gear with my mFT using both to their strengths.
Jim

 jim stirling's gear list:jim stirling's gear list
Olympus C-8080 Wide Zoom Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 Nikon D800 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 +13 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Midnighter
Senior MemberPosts: 1,727
Like?
I dispute this
In reply to Landscapephoto99, Sep 18, 2012

Landscapephoto99 wrote:

Regarding all of the "Are Tempted by the Cheap Price of FF" posts I see: The real disadvantage of FF has nothing to do with price, but bulk, weight and visibility. I see it mainly becoming a studio tool in the future.

1. There is no difference between the DR of FF and m43rds. In fact the E-M5 and likely the new GH3 is better than most FF cameras.

Irrelevant. Dynamic range is a product of a pixel wells ability to collect photons, not sensor size. You could have a sensor the size of the head of a pin and it would have the same DR as long as the size of the individual pixels were the same as those of a larger sensor of similar technology. The image resolution would not be as high of course, kind of like the difference between 16MP MFT and 36MP full frame.

2. As far as high ISO IQ, the 2 stops deeper DoF on m43rds means in low light that I can just open the aperature wide open and shoot, not worrying about having to have a razor think DoF putting most of the scene out of focus. Is FF 2 stops better at high ISO, say FF ISO 12,800 compared to m43rds ISO 3200, than m43rds? I don't think so.

What you are talking about is low light situational DOF control, which is wrapped up in point 4.

3. IBIS means that I can shoot with a fast prime at incredibly slow shutter speeds so as to not have to crank up the ISO. Think about shooting at f1.4 at 1/6 of a second hand held.

This has NOTHING TO DO with full frame Vs MFT. Olympus MFT has IBIS, Panasonic MFT does not. Sony full frame has IBIS, Nikon full frame does not.

4. As far as DoF control: Yes, FF offers shallower DoF at an equivalent aperature, though with .95 lenses for m43rds, DoF should be shallow enough for most. By contrast, there are at least as many circumstances where greater DoF is an advantage as in macro / low light photography.

I do not accept that flexibility of depth of field control can be magicked away with enough extra composition and perspective altering mm. As for .95 aperture lenses, we all know how common and cheap those things are, they should have .95 zoom lenses. Chase DOF control down the rabbit hole and you find medium format and view cameras to be a pain in the posterior of the exact opposite type to MFT, you often just cant get enough DOF for your situation and needed exposure. As for specific types of photography and specific situations favoring the extra DOF of MFT, certainly they exist. The key work in that is 'specific'. 'Specific' situations in human terms can justify or require almost anything, even cannibalism. GENERAL situations are a different story and the same is true for DOF control. For GENERAL situations full frame is better IMO.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
CharlesB58
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,477
Like?
Re: FF NOT Better than m43rds for Image Quality and DoF control
In reply to Landscapephoto99, Sep 18, 2012

Landscapephoto99 wrote:

Regarding all of the "Are Tempted by the Cheap Price of FF" posts I see: The real disadvantage of FF has nothing to do with price, but bulk, weight and visibility. I see it mainly becoming a studio tool in the future.

1. There is no difference between the DR of FF and m43rds. In fact the E-M5 and likely the new GH3 is better than most FF cameras.

2. As far as high ISO IQ, the 2 stops deeper DoF on m43rds means in low light that I can just open the aperature wide open and shoot, not worrying about having to have a razor think DoF putting most of the scene out of focus. Is FF 2 stops better at high ISO, say FF ISO 12,800 compared to m43rds ISO 3200, than m43rds? I don't think so.

3. IBIS means that I can shoot with a fast prime at incredibly slow shutter speeds so as to not have to crank up the ISO. Think about shooting at f1.4 at 1/6 of a second hand held.

4. As far as DoF control: Yes, FF offers shallower DoF at an equivalent aperature, though with .95 lenses for m43rds, DoF should be shallow enough for most. By contrast, there are at least as many circumstances where greater DoF is an advantage as in macro / low light photography.

Anyone who assumes that any format is "one size fits all" is not paying attention. That's why a large percentage real, working photographers very often have more than one system. Always have. Always will.

-- hide signature --

Some people operate cameras. Others use them to create images. There is a difference.

http://ikkens.zenfolio.com/

http://sarob-w.deviantart.com/

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 16,929Gear list
Like?
Re: Smaller sensors have better technology too
In reply to jim stirling, Sep 18, 2012

jim stirling wrote:

Everdog wrote:

You will get a bunch of replies from clueless people who claim you will get 2 stops more noise with M43 over FF. The problem is they are ASSuming the sensor tech is exactly the same, which it is usually not.

Where would folk get that idea ? Try looking at the E-M5 RAW files with NR turned off not as nice as you imagine. A common problem here is that folk pass judgement on cameras they have never used. All the various systems have their pros and cons none are perfect for everyone so just use what you want and don't waste time worrying about what others use.

Having used the D800 for a wee while now I think for all systems the future is high megapixel counts the flexibility the extra detail gives is a real winner.

Sorry Jim, but your comparison is not correct. You forgot, once again, to turn chroma NR down to zero for both cameras, not just the E-M5. Here are the correct results for the D800 at ISO 6400 versus the E-M5 at ISO 1600 (LR 4.1 with everything at default except chroma NR, which was pulled back from 25 to 0 in both cases). As expected, the E-M5 wins since the difference with regard to DR/shadow noise is more like one EV than two.

D800 at ISO 6400

E-M5 at ISO 1600

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +21 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads