Full-Frame, what am I missing?

[ikolbyi]

As someone who is heavily invested in both MFT (OMS & Panny) and FF (Panny), I wanted to share an image of the two systems side-by-side for those who continuously discuss MFT & FF systems as if MFT is now a cancer or dead system (my interpretation on this forum commentary).

The grass is not necessarily greener on the other (FF) side, it all comes down to how you use the system and what you are trying to photograph.

The below sample is of a static image with natural lighting. Something I saw in my yard after a heavy rainstorm so I brought out both cameras for a quick and dirty comparison. I am noting now the setting are different between the cameras because the systems are different. Different focus distances, lenses, sensors, etc .... but I tried my best to make the image comparison identical. Images processed through DXO v7.






Lumix G9.2




Lumix S1R.2



Which one do you prefer?

 

[ahaslett]

Why would you expect to see a difference, other than not having the same shot? Is base ISO on the S1ii really 200?

A

If you are hung up on specs, then you are not living the moment.

Photography is about living the moment.

A wise man once said "I tried my best to make the image comparison identical. Images processed through DXO v7." . As Yoda would say you either do or you don't . Alas I am afraid you didn't . Different exposures , different focal lengths, different DOF , different ISO

Give us a break Jim,

There is nothing wrong with trying to see if a FF image could be made to compare fairly even with changes to the settings.

This is not an exercise in trying to emulate precisely a FF image with similar (dare I say "equivalent" settings with M4/3) but merely trying to show that a fair and similar representation can be had with a M4/3 camera body to one caught with a FF camera body.

I am afraid it is impossible for a sensor a quarter the size of FF can offer the same IQ .

It is not impossible at all JNK - it really depends on the equivalent exposure triangle required to achieve the desired outcome.

It is certainly possible that you get the same image quality when shooting a FF camera and a MFT camera in many many examples of photography that are dictated by very basic photographic rules vs outcomes.

Equivalence accounts for all aspects of IQ, SNR, dynamic range as well as the attainable resolution - assuming a FF sensor and MFT are limited by a similar pixel count… Whilst a FF sensor can offer more resolution, not all FF sensors do.

Where MFT can close a 2 stop by letting in more light to achieve the same DOF often required in producing competent compositions, it is a very simple equation of equivalence - here MFT can certainly offer the same level of IQ as a FF sensor where these factors come into play. If you think that it is “impossible” this has more to do with the shortcomings of user deficiency and nothing to do with the sensor size…

Indeed, equivalence says you can only produce a better image by having a non-equivalent component to your composition or settings. A camera with better IS can allow handheld shooting with longer exposures, cameras with fast readout can stack multiple images with less motion between them, jpeg shooters who want instant output benefit from in-camera AI noise reduction, lenses matter, size and WR can matter…

A

 

[ahaslett]

Just as I am sure no one would seriously suggest FF is as good as Medium Format, but I suppose it’s got its uses for some.

Which medium format?

The 50MP Fuji and Hasselblad models are very nice. However, at that sensor capacity FF (at 47MP or 60MP) can run it close and possibly even surpass it. The FF system will have many advantages in useability and size. The "medium format" sensor in the Fuji and Hasselblad in physical size isn't significantly larger than the FF sensor, certainly not as much as you'd might expect.

I write this as a very satisfied micro four thirds user since 2012, and four thirds since 2008. I'm contemplating adding a native higher resolution camera body to my system, and have narrowed it down to the Panasonic Lumix S1R or a Fuji GFX50 (of some sort). There really isn't an awful lot in it, and FF has many advantages.

A mount with multiple lens makers has a big advantage.

A

 

[pipituni]

The clinical static test images shown above does not account for the poor lighting in most ice rinks and the effect it has on the camera sesensor.

This is one thing I don't get about high ISO test shots as these.

the point is that it's a controlled test which gives a good enough indication of ISO performance between sensors

Because in a well lit studio test scene even a 1/2.3" sensor camera does passable at High ISO, yet when light is low a 1/2.3" sensor falls apart even at ISO400.

here's the same scene with a 1/2.3" sensor @ 800 ISO and it clearly shows that the sensor falls apart and is comparable to ISO 6400 on the OM5

so your comment is inaccurate. i think you may be getting confused with jpeg output, which would be denoised in camera and masks noise more?

Same for any sized sensor Medium Format Full Frame Aps-c M4/3 1" in bright light or well lit scene at High ISO they perform a Lot better than when light is low.

 

[pipituni]

Of all the cameras I have used/owned, the EM1.3 was my favorite. It has 1 “flaw”, ISO performance (for my use). The OM-1 fixes that issue but I prefer the body of the EM1.3.

curious which use you have that gives you worse ISO performance with the EM1.3, or even the EM1.2 for that matter

looking at the good ol' studio scene it's hard to see any difference?

unless you're referring to jpeg output but that's simply AI denoising being applied in camera in the case of the OM1

My former EM1.3 didn’t handle ISO above 3200 well at all even after processed RAW through DXO. I am able to use OM-1 RAW images processed through DXO up to ISO 6400.
This mattered for my ice hockey photography where ISO was typically 3200 - 5000.

The clinical static test images shown above does not account for the poor lighting in most ice rinks and the effect it has on the camera sensor.

My experience as well, better high ISO with the OM-1 than the 1.3.

stacked sensors in general improve rolling shutter and allow faster performance (more fps and so on), but i've not heard of a stacked sensor that improves image quality, and the studio scene i posted seems to support this

is there a comparison somewhere that shows otherwise?

 

[SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany]

The clinical static test images shown above does not account for the poor lighting in most ice rinks and the effect it has on the camera sesensor.

This is one thing I don't get about high ISO test shots as these.

the point is that it's a controlled test which gives a good enough indication of ISO performance between sensors.

This test scene can be lowered in light to make it less well lit more dark, then it is still controlled test. This then would show how sensors perform at lower light High ISO.

Because in a well lit studio test scene even a 1/2.3" sensor camera does passable at High ISO, yet when light is low a 1/2.3" sensor falls apart even at ISO400.

here's the same scene with a 1/2.3" sensor @ 800 ISO and it clearly shows that the sensor falls apart and is comparable to ISO 6400 on the OM5

so your comment is inaccurate. i think you may be getting confused with jpeg output, which would be denoised in camera and masks noise more?

Zero innacurcy, Zero confusion.

What I was saying is when the light is bright, scene decently lit, then any sensor size performs better at High ISO, compared to when low light, darkly lit.

Same for any sized sensor Medium Format Full Frame Aps-c M4/3 1" in bright light or well lit scene at High ISO they perform a Lot better than when light is low.

--
Photography after all is interplay of light alongside perspective.

 

[Bas Hamstra]

Completely off topic: is the OM5 about as good as the OM1 and OM2? And even a bit better than the EM1.2 that I have? These live landscape filters are so tempting...I use my EM1.2 for macro and shadow noise in raised shadows is a bit of an issue, than can be solved mostly by AI denoise, but that's slow...

Bas

To each their own. I could directly compare the D800e with the EM1.2 and the EM1.2 in situation where it could was a bit better than the D800e. Which to this day is a very solid FF sensor I think. I do expect the G9.2 to outclass my Em1.2 in pixelshift mode but may be it is not too significant.

This Nikon was launched 13 years ago. We need to compare current M43 with current FF or APS -C

There seems to be a great reluctance in this forum to accept that bigger, higher-resolution sensors offer better IQ.

This is basic physics I am afraid.

It can be argued that M43 is sufficient for a lot of uses and has the benefit of lower weight and smaller size however.

I can’t be bothered, except to point to my A7CR being 515g and the G9 658g. I realise the ep7, G100D and OM5 are lighter than any FF body, although the fp l is only a few gm heavier than an OM5.

With lenses, it rather depends on angle of view and entry pupil size, so an MFT 17/1.2 is heavier and more expensive than a Sony 40/2.5 G, although the MFT lens will focus in lower light. F1.2 is harder to design for than f2.5.

Higher resolution certainly has advantages for some types of shot, although there are diminishing returns for sure. DR at base ISO is a real advantage.

I would certainly argue that my OM5 and 12-45/4 are sufficient for a lot of uses.

TLR It all depends - choice is good.

A

 

[JNK 100]

Why would you expect to see a difference, other than not having the same shot? Is base ISO on the S1ii really 200?

A

If you are hung up on specs, then you are not living the moment.

Photography is about living the moment.

A wise man once said "I tried my best to make the image comparison identical. Images processed through DXO v7." . As Yoda would say you either do or you don't . Alas I am afraid you didn't . Different exposures , different focal lengths, different DOF , different ISO

Give us a break Jim,

There is nothing wrong with trying to see if a FF image could be made to compare fairly even with changes to the settings.

This is not an exercise in trying to emulate precisely a FF image with similar (dare I say "equivalent" settings with M4/3) but merely trying to show that a fair and similar representation can be had with a M4/3 camera body to one caught with a FF camera body.

I am afraid it is impossible for a sensor a quarter the size of FF can offer the same IQ .

It is not impossible at all JNK - it really depends on the equivalent exposure triangle required to achieve the desired outcome.

It is certainly possible that you get the same image quality when shooting a FF camera and a MFT camera in many many examples of photography that are dictated by very basic photographic rules vs outcomes.

Equivalence accounts for all aspects of IQ, SNR, dynamic range as well as the attainable resolution - assuming a FF sensor and MFT are limited by a similar pixel count… Whilst a FF sensor can offer more resolution, not all FF sensors do.

Where MFT can close a 2 stop by letting in more light to achieve the same DOF often required in producing competent compositions, it is a very simple equation of equivalence - here MFT can certainly offer the same level of IQ as a FF sensor where these factors come into play. If you think that it is “impossible” this has more to do with the shortcomings of user deficiency and nothing to do with the sensor size…

If this were true there would be no demand for APS-C, FF or MF cameras. In fact you yourself made a large number of posts worshipping the Fuji GF100RF .

Although as you say, I may have shortcomings of user-defiency, I believe physics to be on my side.

There may well be some shots that will look similar on screen perhaps but less likely if printed to A3 and above.

There are no OMS M43 sensors with the resolution of any still available FF camera although Panasonic do offer 24 mp I think.

As a FF user, I accept that MF will give me better IQ but I choose FF for other reasons. What I find hard to understand is the reluctance to accept that larger sensors in most situations, produce better IQ. To not accept that a 40-60mp FF sensor does not offer better IQ than a max 24mp sensor a quarter of the size is just self-delusion.

M43 cameras have their place of course, but let's not pretend they can offer what they do not.

 

[ikolbyi]

Why would you expect to see a difference, other than not having the same shot? Is base ISO on the S1ii really 200?

A

If you are hung up on specs, then you are not living the moment.

Photography is about living the moment.

A wise man once said "I tried my best to make the image comparison identical. Images processed through DXO v7." . As Yoda would say you either do or you don't . Alas I am afraid you didn't . Different exposures , different focal lengths, different DOF , different ISO

Give us a break Jim,

There is nothing wrong with trying to see if a FF image could be made to compare fairly even with changes to the settings.

This is not an exercise in trying to emulate precisely a FF image with similar (dare I say "equivalent" settings with M4/3) but merely trying to show that a fair and similar representation can be had with a M4/3 camera body to one caught with a FF camera body.

I am afraid it is impossible for a sensor a quarter the size of FF can offer the same IQ .

It is not impossible at all JNK - it really depends on the equivalent exposure triangle required to achieve the desired outcome.

It is certainly possible that you get the same image quality when shooting a FF camera and a MFT camera in many many examples of photography that are dictated by very basic photographic rules vs outcomes.

Equivalence accounts for all aspects of IQ, SNR, dynamic range as well as the attainable resolution - assuming a FF sensor and MFT are limited by a similar pixel count… Whilst a FF sensor can offer more resolution, not all FF sensors do.

Where MFT can close a 2 stop by letting in more light to achieve the same DOF often required in producing competent compositions, it is a very simple equation of equivalence - here MFT can certainly offer the same level of IQ as a FF sensor where these factors come into play. If you think that it is “impossible” this has more to do with the shortcomings of user deficiency and nothing to do with the sensor size…

IQ, SNR, Dynamic Range - none of that mattered to the general viewer. As the days have passed more and more general public have responded to me on their preference of the two mushrooms and it is lopsided-overwhelming in favor of the MFT image.

Primary reason was they actually preferred the background, and most thought the image detail was equivalent.

if technical specs wins any argument, then this little exercise dispels what you believe to be true FF is ‘better’. It’s not the camera gear, never was, it is about using a tool to tell a story and that is the lesson ‘FF is better’ crowd seem to not comprehend.

 

[ahaslett]

Completely off topic: is the OM5 about as good as the OM1 and OM2? And even a bit better than the EM1.2 that I have? These live landscape filters are so tempting...I use my EM1.2 for macro and shadow noise in raised shadows is a bit of an issue, than can be solved mostly by AI denoise, but that's slow...

Bas

I use DeepPrime for denoise, so I’m not bothered by a few seconds extra processing. My laptop is a gaming one that has taken more than 2 hours to process a work task doing georeferencing on millions of points in a GIS package. Being fast at image processing is a bonus. Both in-camera and Workspace AI noise reduction are pretty good, just not as good as PhotoLab.

I looked at some direct shadow noise comparisons between the OM1 mk i, EM1X and EM1.3 using RAWs kindly posted by early owners. The OM1 has a very small advantage in colour accuracy in deep shadows. I never compared my (sold) EM1.2 to my OM5, but I doubt there is much difference.

The OM1 can get the shot more easily than the OM5 and the OM1 mk ii added pretty decent human subject detection and acceptable non subject tracking. I prefer the AF in my A7CR because detection and tracking are integrated. From a small amount of testing with an OM1 mk ii, I suspect it’s a bit better than the A7CR/A7Cii/A7Rv at humans but nowhere near the A9/A1 bodies at non subject tracking.

Of course the OM1/OM3 bodies have a significant low light AF advantage over larger sensors when using equivalent lenses. I find the OM1 is magic, provided you understand the AF quirks.

To each their own. I could directly compare the D800e with the EM1.2 and the EM1.2 in situation where it could was a bit better than the D800e. Which to this day is a very solid FF sensor I think. I do expect the G9.2 to outclass my Em1.2 in pixelshift mode but may be it is not too significant.

This Nikon was launched 13 years ago. We need to compare current M43 with current FF or APS -C

There seems to be a great reluctance in this forum to accept that bigger, higher-resolution sensors offer better IQ.

This is basic physics I am afraid.

It can be argued that M43 is sufficient for a lot of uses and has the benefit of lower weight and smaller size however.

I can’t be bothered, except to point to my A7CR being 515g and the G9 658g. I realise the ep7, G100D and OM5 are lighter than any FF body, although the fp l is only a few gm heavier than an OM5.

With lenses, it rather depends on angle of view and entry pupil size, so an MFT 17/1.2 is heavier and more expensive than a Sony 40/2.5 G, although the MFT lens will focus in lower light. F1.2 is harder to design for than f2.5.

Higher resolution certainly has advantages for some types of shot, although there are diminishing returns for sure. DR at base ISO is a real advantage.

I would certainly argue that my OM5 and 12-45/4 are sufficient for a lot of uses.

TLR It all depends - choice is good.

A

A

 

[ikolbyi]

Why would you expect to see a difference, other than not having the same shot? Is base ISO on the S1ii really 200?

A

If you are hung up on specs, then you are not living the moment.

Photography is about living the moment.

A wise man once said "I tried my best to make the image comparison identical. Images processed through DXO v7." . As Yoda would say you either do or you don't . Alas I am afraid you didn't . Different exposures , different focal lengths, different DOF , different ISO

Give us a break Jim,

There is nothing wrong with trying to see if a FF image could be made to compare fairly even with changes to the settings.

This is not an exercise in trying to emulate precisely a FF image with similar (dare I say "equivalent" settings with M4/3) but merely trying to show that a fair and similar representation can be had with a M4/3 camera body to one caught with a FF camera body.

I am afraid it is impossible for a sensor a quarter the size of FF can offer the same IQ .

It is not impossible at all JNK - it really depends on the equivalent exposure triangle required to achieve the desired outcome.

It is certainly possible that you get the same image quality when shooting a FF camera and a MFT camera in many many examples of photography that are dictated by very basic photographic rules vs outcomes.

Equivalence accounts for all aspects of IQ, SNR, dynamic range as well as the attainable resolution - assuming a FF sensor and MFT are limited by a similar pixel count… Whilst a FF sensor can offer more resolution, not all FF sensors do.

Where MFT can close a 2 stop by letting in more light to achieve the same DOF often required in producing competent compositions, it is a very simple equation of equivalence - here MFT can certainly offer the same level of IQ as a FF sensor where these factors come into play. If you think that it is “impossible” this has more to do with the shortcomings of user deficiency and nothing to do with the sensor size…

If this were true there would be no demand for APS-C, FF or MF cameras. In fact you yourself made a large number of posts worshipping the Fuji GF100RF .

Although as you say, I may have shortcomings of user-defiency, I believe physics to be on my side.

There may well be some shots that will look similar on screen perhaps but less likely if printed to A3 and above.

There are no OMS M43 sensors with the resolution of any still available FF camera although Panasonic do offer 24 mp I think.

As a FF user, I accept that MF will give me better IQ but I choose FF for other reasons. What I find hard to understand is the reluctance to accept that larger sensors in most situations, produce better IQ. To not accept that a 40-60mp FF sensor does not offer better IQ than a max 24mp sensor a quarter of the size is just self-delusion.

M43 cameras have their place of course, but let's not pretend they can offer what they do not.

I have sold prints as large as 13x19 using my OM-1. I have prints as large as 20x24 hanging on my walls using same camera. You don’t need high-megapixels for prints unless we are talking about billboards and that viewing distance is far allowing for lower quality.

the general viewer does not care about camera gear, they care about what the image story is about. Composition and lighting is everything.

 

[ikolbyi]

Just as I am sure no one would seriously suggest FF is as good as Medium Format, but I suppose it’s got its uses for some.

Which medium format?

The 50MP Fuji and Hasselblad models are very nice. However, at that sensor capacity FF (at 47MP or 60MP) can run it close and possibly even surpass it. The FF system will have many advantages in useability and size. The "medium format" sensor in the Fuji and Hasselblad in physical size isn't significantly larger than the FF sensor, certainly not as much as you'd might expect.

I write this as a very satisfied micro four thirds user since 2012, and four thirds since 2008. I'm contemplating adding an native higher resolution camera body to my system, and have narrowed it down to the Panasonic Lumix S1R or a Fuji GFX50 (of some sort). There really isn't an awful lot in it, and FF has many advantages.

I use to own a Fuji GFX 100s and a series of lenses, it was a beast to use. Lovely images, far superior to any FF I used, but the handling characteristics made it not a pleasure to use so I sold and left the system.

 

[ikolbyi]

Completely off topic: is the OM5 about as good as the OM1 and OM2? And even a bit better than the EM1.2 that I have? These live landscape filters are so tempting...I use my EM1.2 for macro and shadow noise in raised shadows is a bit of an issue, than can be solved mostly by AI denoise, but that's slow...

Bas

my understanding is the OM-5 has the EM1.3 sensor.

it is a fine sensor in my book, just don’t go above ISO 3200.

To each their own. I could directly compare the D800e with the EM1.2 and the EM1.2 in situation where it could was a bit better than the D800e. Which to this day is a very solid FF sensor I think. I do expect the G9.2 to outclass my Em1.2 in pixelshift mode but may be it is not too significant.

This Nikon was launched 13 years ago. We need to compare current M43 with current FF or APS -C

There seems to be a great reluctance in this forum to accept that bigger, higher-resolution sensors offer better IQ.

This is basic physics I am afraid.

It can be argued that M43 is sufficient for a lot of uses and has the benefit of lower weight and smaller size however.

I can’t be bothered, except to point to my A7CR being 515g and the G9 658g. I realise the ep7, G100D and OM5 are lighter than any FF body, although the fp l is only a few gm heavier than an OM5.

With lenses, it rather depends on angle of view and entry pupil size, so an MFT 17/1.2 is heavier and more expensive than a Sony 40/2.5 G, although the MFT lens will focus in lower light. F1.2 is harder to design for than f2.5.

Higher resolution certainly has advantages for some types of shot, although there are diminishing returns for sure. DR at base ISO is a real advantage.

I would certainly argue that my OM5 and 12-45/4 are sufficient for a lot of uses.

TLR It all depends - choice is good.

A

--
Bas
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bahazzie/

 

[ikolbyi]

.... but there are photos FF can get that M43 cant.

Myself (and I'm sure others) would really appreciate if you could expand on this and list some absolute examples to state your claim.

Jared Polin made the claim (paraphrasing) the original LUMIX S1R is unusable for sports and the m2 version is not much better……

my response to those individuals who agree:

Challenge accepted: Ice Hockey using Lumix S1R

For 10+ years I have been photographing ice hockey, my present preferred camera of choice is OM System OM-1. I was challenged by fellow photographers to use my Lumix S1R in my next game given it's perceived 'action/sports photography handicap' ...... challenge accepted. All images photographed...

www.dpreview.com

 

[pipituni]

This is one thing I don't get about high ISO test shots as these.

the point is that it's a controlled test which gives a good enough indication of ISO performance between sensors.

This test scene can be lowered in light to make it less well lit more dark, then it is still controlled test. This then would show how sensors perform at lower light High ISO.

Because in a well lit studio test scene even a 1/2.3" sensor camera does passable at High ISO, yet when light is low a 1/2.3" sensor falls apart even at ISO400.

this is inaccurate, as the studio scene clearly shows, as does the example i posted

the end

here's the same scene with a 1/2.3" sensor @ 800 ISO and it clearly shows that the sensor falls apart and is comparable to ISO 6400 on the OM5

so your comment is inaccurate. i think you may be getting confused with jpeg output, which would be denoised in camera and masks noise more?

Zero innacurcy, Zero confusion.

What I was saying is when the light is bright, scene decently lit, then any sensor size performs better at High ISO, compared to when low light, darkly lit.

well, the scene on offer is the one that's on offer

in absence of a darkly lit alternative that's the closest we can refer to

 

[JNK 100]

Why would you expect to see a difference, other than not having the same shot? Is base ISO on the S1ii really 200?

A

If you are hung up on specs, then you are not living the moment.

Photography is about living the moment.

A wise man once said "I tried my best to make the image comparison identical. Images processed through DXO v7." . As Yoda would say you either do or you don't . Alas I am afraid you didn't . Different exposures , different focal lengths, different DOF , different ISO

Give us a break Jim,

There is nothing wrong with trying to see if a FF image could be made to compare fairly even with changes to the settings.

This is not an exercise in trying to emulate precisely a FF image with similar (dare I say "equivalent" settings with M4/3) but merely trying to show that a fair and similar representation can be had with a M4/3 camera body to one caught with a FF camera body.

I am afraid it is impossible for a sensor a quarter the size of FF can offer the same IQ .

It is not impossible at all JNK - it really depends on the equivalent exposure triangle required to achieve the desired outcome.

It is certainly possible that you get the same image quality when shooting a FF camera and a MFT camera in many many examples of photography that are dictated by very basic photographic rules vs outcomes.

Equivalence accounts for all aspects of IQ, SNR, dynamic range as well as the attainable resolution - assuming a FF sensor and MFT are limited by a similar pixel count… Whilst a FF sensor can offer more resolution, not all FF sensors do.

Where MFT can close a 2 stop by letting in more light to achieve the same DOF often required in producing competent compositions, it is a very simple equation of equivalence - here MFT can certainly offer the same level of IQ as a FF sensor where these factors come into play. If you think that it is “impossible” this has more to do with the shortcomings of user deficiency and nothing to do with the sensor size…

If this were true there would be no demand for APS-C, FF or MF cameras. In fact you yourself made a large number of posts worshipping the Fuji GF100RF .

Although as you say, I may have shortcomings of user-defiency, I believe physics to be on my side.

There may well be some shots that will look similar on screen perhaps but less likely if printed to A3 and above.

There are no OMS M43 sensors with the resolution of any still available FF camera although Panasonic do offer 24 mp I think.

As a FF user, I accept that MF will give me better IQ but I choose FF for other reasons. What I find hard to understand is the reluctance to accept that larger sensors in most situations, produce better IQ. To not accept that a 40-60mp FF sensor does not offer better IQ than a max 24mp sensor a quarter of the size is just self-delusion.

M43 cameras have their place of course, but let's not pretend they can offer what they do not.

I have sold prints as large as 13x19 using my OM-1. I have prints as large as 20x24 hanging on my walls using same camera. You don’t need high-megapixels for prints unless we are talking about billboards and that viewing distance is far allowing for lower quality.

the general viewer does not care about camera gear, they care about what the image story is about. Composition and lighting is everything.

I am sure you are right in what you say. However, you may see a difference if you compared it side by side with a high resolution FF shot. I am sure your 20x24 shot looks brilliant and the OM1 is a great camera. I have large prints from an 11mp FF years which look great too.

My point wasn't to have a go at M43 at all but just remark that FF or MF can offer better IQ ( which may or may not be overkill sometimes).

 

[pipituni]

Completely off topic: is the OM5 about as good as the OM1 and OM2? And even a bit better than the EM1.2 that I have? These live landscape filters are so tempting...I use my EM1.2 for macro and shadow noise in raised shadows is a bit of an issue, than can be solved mostly by AI denoise, but that's slow...

image quality of the Oly/OM 20mp sensors is pretty much identical since the 20mp Pen F

 

[BudgetTraveller]

IQ, SNR, Dynamic Range - none of that mattered to the general viewer. As the days have passed more and more general public have responded to me on their preference of the two mushrooms and it is lopsided-overwhelming in favor of the MFT image.

Primary reason was they actually preferred the background, and most thought the image detail was equivalent.

if technical specs wins any argument, then this little exercise dispels what you believe to be true FF is ‘better’. It’s not the camera gear, never was, it is about using a tool to tell a story and that is the lesson ‘FF is better’ crowd seem to not comprehend.

This is precisely this.

When people are trapped in their own duality consciousness, they can only see 2 acceptable answers. In my experience, it's pointless to argue or even convince people who are in their own duality consciousness. There are only 2 acceptable answers they see and those who chose MFT will defend MFT for what it is and not see that other answers such as camera gear is just a tool and also the output requirement dictates which equipment is necessary are also acceptable answers for choosing gear that prove the point of your sample shots. Those other answers simply are not seen by people who are in their own duality consciousness. As the name implies; it's dualistic. It's either for MFT or against MFT and when they see you as promoting FF, you are against MFT even if I know you are a sensible person providing SAGE wisdom and advice. But you are in a non-dualistic consciousness where you see more than 2 choices, 2 answers for any issues and challenges we see in photography.

 

[ikolbyi]

Completely off topic: is the OM5 about as good as the OM1 and OM2? And even a bit better than the EM1.2 that I have? These live landscape filters are so tempting...I use my EM1.2 for macro and shadow noise in raised shadows is a bit of an issue, than can be solved mostly by AI denoise, but that's slow...

image quality of the Oly/OM 20mp sensors is pretty much identical since the 20mp Pen F

The sensor may be the same but the camera processor is improving its image performance .

thats why the EM1.X has held up so well because it has two, one dedicated to the camera functions and another dedicated to the sensor. All other OM cameras have a single processor that shares managing the camera functions and sensor processing.

 

[pipituni]

Completely off topic: is the OM5 about as good as the OM1 and OM2? And even a bit better than the EM1.2 that I have? These live landscape filters are so tempting...I use my EM1.2 for macro and shadow noise in raised shadows is a bit of an issue, than can be solved mostly by AI denoise, but that's slow...

image quality of the Oly/OM 20mp sensors is pretty much identical since the 20mp Pen F

The sensor may be the same but the camera processor is improving its image performance .

thats why the EM1.X has held up so well because it has two, one dedicated to the camera functions and another dedicated to the sensor. All other OM cameras have a single processor that shares managing the camera functions and sensor processing.

sorry but that's nonsense

the 2nd processor helps to give higher frame rates and faster processing, but there's no improvement in IQ. if anything, consensus is that stacked sensors have - at best - the same IQ as non stacked, and in some cases the stacked sensor has less DR

the RAW output of Oly/OM 20mp sensors is, for all intents and purposes, identical. the differences are in the jpeg output, because the OM1 applies AI NR in camera. but something like Photolab can do a better job from the RAW file

it's funny, most of this thread is m43 users claiming there's no difference between m43 and ff, or funnier still, between phones and m43

but the same users will claim clear differences between m43 cameras that output identical IQ

only on the m43 forum

 

[JDR1429]

Not that this thread needs another response, but I have 2 FF cameras, 3 APS-C and 1 EM5iii. I love all my cameras and use them all for different situations. Shooting a mushroom in the back yard is not really an definitive way to say M43 is up to all the task of FF or vice versa. In this scenario, pretty close. What about portraits, sports, racing, rodeos, event, weddings, the list goes on.

I think everyone needs to find the solution that works for them. I was an invested Canon SLR user before buying the EM5iii so needless to say I have the lenses more suited for sports, portraits and low light already with Canon. I do have some nice lenses for M43 but none of the good long range lenses. So when I shoot sports I take my Canon gear. I have always wanted to buy the Oly 40-150 F2.8 but just found other things to spend my money on. I did buy the 12-100 and I do love that lens.

When Andy Rouse moved to Sony he commented that FF has a different look to it. I would agree. Not that it's any better, worse but different. Same with APS-C.

There's a reason why on the NFL sidelines you see Canon/Sony/Nikon not all of it has to do with the sensor, focusing ability, depth of field, lens choice, etc.

There's a reason why some wildlife photographers opt for M43. Lens choice, focus ability, etc.

There's a reason why some photographers use Fuji for all events and weddings.

Find what you like and works for you and enjoy photograph!