High ISOS : M4/3 < APS-C < FF ?

Started Apr 26, 2013 | Discussions thread
Xellz Regular Member • Posts: 371
Re: High ISOS : M4/3 < APS-C < FF ?

Sergey Borachev wrote:

Xellz wrote:

Sergey Borachev wrote:

Xellz wrote:

Sergey Borachev wrote:

Xellz wrote:

Sergey Borachev wrote:

Read what I said. You want to trust the photos taken by one person (who you think is biased) as proof, when there are so many scientific tests and also thousands of sample images taken by independent reviewers and users of the cameras?

Whatever I can show is not going to convince you.  or can prove anything any better.  Look at the facts and the tests, experts opinions and what most people want to do, take photos in sunlight as well as cloudy days.

Haven't you seen shots of people under a shade on a bright sunny day?

I saw the tests and photos from different cameras. Don't see a huge difference in them at all and only in certain conditions. But you making it look like difference is clear as day and night. Also telling that IQ is finally adequate in last sensors, so it means that before it was not enough for your needs? That's what i want to see, an example of a photo where older GH2 sensor would be not enough for you. Not for someone else, but for you

Or is it based only on test numbers, not actual photos?

I am surprised that you did not see a problem with the G3 or GH2. Even with the OMD, I still have occasioinal problems if I am not careful on days with a bright sun and have to give up details in either highlight or shadows, and/or also resort to corrective actions in PP.  It is only true if my photos show this?

I was about to suggest that you read and check the reviews and the available images carefully, but then I thought maybe not.  I think it is a blessing and if you are happy with your G3, that is great for you.  You are entitled to your opinion and you deserve to enjoy your own truth. Never mind.

You need to listen to your own advice and stop telling that IQ of older sensors than EM-5/Gh-3 is not adequate for enthusiast photographers, it's not enough for you. Or you think that everyone who is happy with IQ of older sensors can't call themselves photographers? What are they then?

When did I say that?

In at least several post you wrote following:

Sergey Borachev wrote:

I think that the E-M5 (and also the E-PM2, E-PL5, GH3, E-P5, E-PL6) all have, finally, adequate IQ even for enthusiast photographers, as their IQ is so close to APS-C.

How should people who think IQ of older sensors is adequate call themselves?

Why i wanted to see photos is to see that it's actually problem with sensor DR and not the photographer using it. Auto exposure and auto WB can be a problem and need to learn what to expect from your camera, so you can dial necessary exposure compensation when needed. And from what i see, oly and pana handle this quite differently. So again, it might be not the sensor DR fault.

I see why you are so keen to see my photos, and not rely on all th thousands of other photos everywhere.  

I won't blame any photographer though, if there are lost highlight/shadow details when the camera is only capable of capturing 11 stops of DR and the sunlight scene has a DR range of 12, 13 or more stops.  I don't know what kind of special PP you do and how it can recover details already lost.

And yet again you talk only about numbers, do you actually realize that even on sunny day it doesn't really mean you will have all 14 stop in your photo? Show an example, your example on where you think you kept details thanks to extra DR in em-5.

I already showed this example, but just in case upload again. Probably this photo has the most contrast from my photos and fits well for showing DR in sunny day, it was really harsh light and even all extra dr modes for incamera  processing didn't work well (on the left side best what camera could do in jpg). But from raw i recovered quite a lot of details, colors and only a bit of noise appeared, which i could get rid with some spot noise reduction, but was too bother, since almost not visible in display size. In this scene as you see from shadows, sun is in frame just a bit hidden by the roof and yet i could keep well exposed sky and shadow areas with my poor old G3. I probably could see difference if i used em-5 at that time, but difference won't be really big.

And here bigger size for viewing, press 1:1. At 100% not as sharp, kit lens doesn't do well for pixel peeping at 100-200% magnification.

This has more DR, but still not really so challenging, the clouds are bright but the shadows are not so harsh, maybe reflected light scattering around from the right side lighting the area under the eaves.  I don't know what you have done to it, but there is clearly still noise there.  I am sure an E-M5 or GH3 will show better details and also cloud texture.  Unless you compare directly with a better camera or an HDR shot, it is hard to see what you are missing.  With a flat one-tone colour like the eaves, it is easy to scrub it clean of chroma noise or whatever and make it look clean.  With something interesting like a face under shade and you still see the difference.  Try an open beach scene on a sunny day, one of the most common things people shoot.   Even the E-M5 cannot often handle scenes with stronger sunlight and harsh shadows, and needs pushing.  I hope this is not going to raise your standards and make you unhappy about the G3 or G5 now.

I think you don't read text well enough, first of all, jpg on left side is with i.Dynamic option turned to the max. Which already compressed DR in a photo, but it didn't change much. From my description of conditions you should understand well how harsh the shadows actually are. Here in Nagasaki sun near noon can sure get really bright, i can't walk without sunglasses.

Also looks like you don't really understand DR in a scene. Dynamic range, key word here is range. It the difference between most bright part of your photo and most dark one. If you shoot from a dark room a really sunny day in a window, then you will have quite wide DR in your photo. If you shoot simply on beach, then not really that wide. And if you don't lift shadows in post processing then this won't matter all. Even if both cameras can cover all dynamic range in a photo, a better sensor will have less noise after lifting shadows by several stops. Just set your camera to spot metering and point to most dark and most bright area, you can then get about how much stops is in your scene.

And third, where my question about how people who think IQ is adequate on older sensors such as GH2 or even my G3?

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow