I think what you'll find is that most of the responders in this thread who claim that APS-C still has the edge actually own DSLRs and MFT cameras .
Ah yes, because physics always equates to IQ in real life usage doesn't it. It brings us back to all things being equal, which they never are. The D3000 has more light gathering ability, bigger sensor blah blah blah blah, but it gets kicked into touch by the IQ of the PL-1 - how is this possible?
From one Tony to another, thanks, that's exactly what I am saying. I'll leave the Physics and equivalence to the mathematicians, I prefer to use my eye's in real world usage. All things are never equal.
That's a pretty spurious argument really, can your rebel give you the same deep dof I can get at the same aperture with my Pen? of course it can't, same as I can't match a P&S. Deeper dof is more desirable in many instances, not less.These images were taken using a Canon 350D (Rebel XT). Can a u4/3 camera do this?
No argument there. You'll note that in my original post I specifically noted that MFT has some very nice lenses in its range. I also own a 40D and find myself reaching for the GF1 most of the time.
No, what I am saying, is that in real world usage, for the majority of shooting, there is no visible advantage, in fact, in certain situations you could argue in favour of m4/3's. For specific situations you could argue in favour of pretty much any format. There is no magical rise in IQ when using DSLR's, just the occasional scenario where a bit more DR is useful, but as I said, dynamic range isn't the be all and end all.
--
It's possible because the D3000 uses an (old technology) 10.2 megapixel CCD sensor, not a competitive APS-C CMOS sensor. There you have it!
As mentioned, crop DSLR's have only about 50% more sensor area and shouldn't be far superior.
If they do feel threatened I am sure they are just questioning there decision to get a DSLR in the first place
Older tech. The camera is quite new, but the image sensor in it is not (it's the same 10 MP CCD used in the D200 way back).
I'll refer you back to my original comments about the E-30 being a direct competitor to the D90 and 50D. The only thing DPR really criticised the E-30 for was it's original price. The EPL-1 sensor is quite a bit better than the E-30's in many ways, so there is no great difference, just a touch more high ISO performance, which as I keep saying, is not the sole determinant of IQ. People keep forgetting that the 4/3's sensor in m4/3's camera's is the same size as the one used in 4/3's DSLR's and they are very competitive with APS camera's. The only difference is that the sensors in the Pens are actually better than their bigger cousins. DP review themselves acknowledge the m4/3's camera's as having DSLR quality IQ, what's not to understand here. I know it might dent the pride of a few people wedded to their respective brands but that's the truth of it.
Well, i guess theres no point in trying to argue with you. I will only say, look at what happened with APSc vs 43 .. and look at initial sales of Sony NEX. APSc didnt completely trample 43 for no reason. I shot everything from 1/1.8, 2/3, 4/3, APSc, and now FF and i dont pretend that there are no differences... its not even linear.. more like exponential increases.
Nikon and Canon had an established market because Olympus dropped out of the AF game and abandoned the OM series, it had nothing to do with the sensor size. Oly was late to the game with their first DSLR, which was the Pro specified E-1. Nikon and Canon already had a large foothold. I too shoot a lot of formats, I know the strengths and weaknesses of them all and that's how I know that for general shooting and outside of extremes the 4/3's sensors compete on an IQ basis. All systems are compromises, they are the best compromise for me YMMV.
--
