Evolution of m43 Image Quality

Anders W said:

Anders W said:

For my usage said:

Anders W said:

Great Bustard, post: 53140946, member: 425766"]

Anders W said:

Anders W, post: 53140946, member: 425766"]

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

In the past, where I had a film with a fixed low ISO (somewhere between 50 and 400 as a rule), I used to prefer a correctly exposed shot to an underexposed one. That sometimes meant shooting my fast FF primes wide open in spite of the DoF being too shallow. But that was only because there was really no other way to get the shot at all.

Today, when exposure is not determined by the film and we are no longer so desperate for more light (since the sensors have become very good), I typically prefer the results I get with my fast MFT lenses wide open to those I would get with FF at the same f-stop. This effectively means that I often prefer more DoF to less noise.

Click to expand...

Not merely more DOF, but depending on the particular lenses being used, you get more resolution wide open to wide open. For example, the 25 / 1.4 at f/1.4 on an EM1 will resolve better, even for the portions of the scene within the DOF, than the Canon 50 / 1.4 at f/1.4 on a Canon 6D.

Of course, it depends on the f-ratio and the lens, but I'm just sayin'.

In that particular comparison, yes. However, that's primarily due to the Pany 25/1.4 being fairly new and the Canon 50/1.4 quite old. My long-term expectation is that FF and MFT lenses will do roughly on a par at the same f-stop.

Anders W said:

In other words, the opportunity structure has changed whereas my preferences have stayed relatively constant. Today it is much easier to get reasonably noise-free images even in low light than it used to be. Consequently, it is easier to give DoF its due.

Click to expand...

Makes sense.

Good.

Anders W said:

Anders W said:

Of course, for static scenes and a tripod, it's simply a matter of how many exposures you want to take to get the IQ you want.

Click to expand...

Right. So for this type of shot, the signal-noise performance of the sensor is simply not an issue.

Click to expand...

Not an IQ issue, but it is a convenience issue.

Yes. And a pretty marginal one in at that in my view. First, the interval where I'd choose to bracket and stack with MFT but not do so with an FF sensor capable of 14 EV or so DR at base ISO is quite narrow. In other words, once you get to scenes that really pose problems from a DR point of view, the difference between MFT and FF isn't all that large from a practical point of view. Second, the inconvenience of bracketing and stacking with MFT where I wouldn't have to with FF must of course be weighted against the inconvenience of carrying more bulk/weight (or abstaining from some "FL control").

Click to expand...

I don't disagree.

Anders W said:

Anders W said:

Anders W said:

Anders W said:

Anders W said:

Anders W said:

and the greater read noise per area of FF sensors is a direct consequence of the greater pixel count.

Click to expand...

I am afraid it's not that simple.

Click to expand...

Of course it isn't that simple, but the greater pixel count has a lot to do with it.

Click to expand...

See below.

Anders W said:

Anders W said:

First, let's have a look at the same graph when substituting the 16 MP Nikon Df and the 24 MP Sony A7 for the 36 MP Sony A7R.

View: original size

First, although the A7 has significantly fewer pixels than the A7R, it doesn't do better relative to the E-M1 than the A7R does. Second, while the Df, with the same pixel count as the E-M1, does better than the A7/A7R at high ISOs, it a) doesn't bridge the gap fully at these ISOs (i.e. DR remains lower than that of the E-M1 at the same DoF), and b) does worse than the A7/A7R at lower ISOs.

Click to expand...

But we do see that fewer pixels results in greater DR, which was my point.

Click to expand...

In parts of the range for 16 versus 24/36 MP. In other parts, it is the other way around. In the comparison between 24 and 36 there is no difference.

Click to expand...

Well, the A7 looks to be ISOless, whereas the Df doesn't become ISOless until ISO 800. If both were ISOless, the Df would have the DR advantage all the way through due to the lower pixel count.

Click to expand...

The problem with this reasoning is that you assume that the transition from non-ISOlessness to ISOlessness would necessarily imply that the DR at low ISOs would improve and that at high ISO stay the same. I think the opposite scenario (or something in-between) just as likely. In other words, I think the Df sensor (pioneering in the D4 which is targeted to a certain pro audience) might well be optimized for high ISO at the expense of low ISO. Other sensors, like that of the A7/A7R may be tuned more with an eye to both ranges.

Click to expand...

I started a thread that addresses this point, the conclusion of which is that it would work out as I stated. If you feel otherwise, let's discuss this point further in the PST forum.

If it would work out as you stated it in that thread, why hasn't Canon done it?

Click to expand...

I dunno. I mean, IBIS works, and yet Canon insists on IS on the lens instead of sensor.

Anders W said:

Or if, as an alternative, it would be possible to merely replace the ADC(s) by something that produces less noise why hasn't Canon done that? Same questions for the D4/Df which has a similar read-noise curve (although it does a bit better at low ISOs than the Canons).

Click to expand...

I have no answers for that. The answer could be anything from "There are important, or expensive, issues you have not considered" to "we just didn't think it was important".

Anders W said:

Anders W said:

Anders W said:

Anders W said:

Anders W said:

Well, there is variation in the read noise per area between current sensors, as you know, which also varies as a function of the ISO. However, as a general rule, the greater the number of pixels, the greater the read noise per area for sensors of a given generation.

Click to expand...

Got any good statistics to show the validity of this generalization across sensors more generally, and across the entire ISO range, not just parts of it?

Click to expand...

As above, whether or not the sensor is ISOless or not plays a huge role at the low ISOs. However, if we compare sensors of the same generation at ISOs where they are ISOless, do you disagree?

Click to expand...

See above.

Click to expand...

Read the thread.

I did.

Anders W said:

Anders W said:

Anders W said:

Anders W said:

Anders W said:

Anders W said:

Of course, if your photography will generally require you to shoot the larger format at the same DOF and shutter speed you would use with the smaller format, then you will almost invariably be better served with the smaller format, unless the larger format has some particular operational advantage that the smaller format does not offer.

Click to expand...

Precisely.

Click to expand...

In the end, that's the bottom line, really. I mean, why would someone purchase a FF DSLR simply to shoot photos equivalent to what a smaller format could do?

Click to expand...

Exactly. Especially if the smaller format can do those photos better than FF.

Click to expand...

Indeed. In fact, in some situations a cell phone will outperform a FF DSLR!

Click to expand...

Hmm. Save for the cell phone being smaller, I can't really think of any situation where I'd be better off with it than with my E-M5. What would that be?

Click to expand...

Let's say you needed the DOF that the cell phone gave wide open. If the cell phone had a significantly more efficient sensor (say 70% QE and a read noise of one electron per pixel), it would outperform the EM5 and FF. And while the numbers for the sensor efficiency are realistic, I think, the premise of needing the DOF the cell phone gives wide open would, methinks, fall under the heading of most preferring less noise to more DOF discussed above.

Once we get to the DoF that the cell phone gives wide open, I would hesitate to use it even in the rare (for me) situation where I'd need it since we'd already be into diffraction territory. Then comes the question of lens quality and sensor pixel count on top of that (for a reasonably normal smartphone; I am not talking about the Nokia 1020 or something like that).

Click to expand...

Sure. I did say "in some situations", right? Not necessarily situations that any particular person would encounter, however. Specifically, anytime you need f/10 on mFT in low light with a "reasonable" shutter speed, a cell phone may get the job done better than larger formats.

Click to expand...

texinwien said:

blue_skies said:

texinwien said:

blue_skies said:

Anders W said:

blue_skies said:

Lumixdude said:

blue_skies said:

Lumixdude said:

blue_skies said:

There is a reason that smaller sensors shooters tend to shoot at low(est) ISO, right?

Cheers,
Henry

Click to expand...

There is a reason why people should learn how to use a camera, ISO should be the last possible adjustment you use if there is no other option due to the way it degrades image quality. It should be:

1) Buy a faster lens that is sharp wide open

2) adjust aperture and exposure values

3) IF you still cannot get your shot on an extremely rare occasion that you've got your lenses in the range of F/0.95 to F/2.8 for then think adjusting your ISO, but not until.

Let the lens do its job and not the camera body. It's way to often that I see people on DPreview with their ISO blasted way high when it was simply not necessary to achieve the shot that was taken.

This is simply poor camera skills particularly on Micro Four Thirds for two reasons

1) You have a fairly wide depth of field anyway so you don't need to stop down as much

2) You don't have the ISO headroom anyway...

As I said, if you want better camera skills, learn to shoot with a compact and then come back to this debate. There should almost never be a need to have your ISO above 3200 let alone some of the ridiculous shots where you see people out at ISO64000. If you know how to make the most out of your lenses, you simply wont need more than the ISO range that Micro Four Thirds has anyway.

Click to expand...

Ok, let me walk you through this.

You are shooting e.g. f/2.0 at ISO 400 on the m43.

In FF equivalency, this is f/4.0 at ISO 1600. A fairly mid level value for both aperture and ISO. You have 4 stops down to f/1.4 (4.0, 2.8, 2.0, 1.4) and 5 ISO stops (1600, 800, 400, 200, 100).

Going the other way, to f/16 you have 5 stops (4.0, 5.6, 8.0, 11.0, 16.0) and to ISO 12800 you have 4 stops (1600, 3200, 6400, 12800).

So, you f/2.0 and ISO 400 is a fairly flexible spot, in equivalency, for an FF shooter.

Now, on m43, you have one stop down (2.0, 1.4) and 3 stops in ISO (400, 200, 100). Going up you have 5 stops (2.0, 2.8, 4.0, 5.6, 8.0) and in ISO you have 3 stops (400, 800, 1600), four if you push to 3200.

(I know, there is also f/22, and f/11 - I ignore those).

So, FF: -4, -5 to +5, +4 versus m43: -2, -3, +5, +4

So, both have the same 'up-scale', but the FF down-scale is much longer. See that? It looks to me that FF has a broader range. I can go up and down. In m43, I can only go up - no wonder you guys talk going down, well, down Blame it on shallow DOF. What about the low ISO? It is there too - see that?

Or FF covers the m43 range, but not the other way around.

If you want to shoot ISO-less, as you are describing, you need a sensor with a fairly broad ISO range. Looks to me that a larger sensor would be preferred - I have more workable ISO stops.

texinwien said:

1) You have a fairly wide depth of field anyway so you don't need to stop down as much

Click to expand...

Which is of course because, in FF equivalent terms, you are already stopped down that much. So, what is wrong with the FF shooter stopping down to equivalent values? That his sensor is less efficient, and his noise floor comes up? The FF shooter knows what noise he can tolerate, so he will balance that his way.

texinwien said:

2) You don't have the ISO headroom anyway...

Click to expand...

Not in m43 terms. Usable noise levels, per DxO are ISO 800 for E-M1 and ISO 2200 for A7. So, in our example above, the m43 only gets ISO 400 and ISO 800, whereas the A7 only gets ISO 1600 and ISO 2200 (ok, 3200 when we push). Looks to me that the headroom is the same.

But - the m43 then only has ISO 100, 200, 400, and 800. The A7 then has ISO 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200. That is 50% more - big difference, imho.

Anyways, this is getting off topic, but I have heard the arguments a lot that ISO 100 is best, and IBIS is your friend. So, lower ISO and lengthen exposure - at least for m43 sensors. For FF sensors, I rarely hear this. IS is often ignored, as shutter speeds can be kept high, and ISO 1600 is so noise free that no one thinks too much about ISO - it is about the exposure parameters first, as you suggested in the beginning of your post.

So, I have several sharp f/1.4 and f/1.8 FF lenses. Would I need faster? I think I have most covered.

Back to my example - a smaller sensor shooter, by necessity, prefers lower ISO. Fair, you have more DOF, which is great. But a larger sensor shooter matches exposure and FL/aperture to his liking. Then ISO falls out. He will shoot at whatever ISO is required. But isn't that your claim? Yes, but it applies to the larger format shooter - see that?

Anyways, we are getting off topic - my point, which you highlighted, is now explained, I guess.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

Anders W said:

blue_skies said:

Anders W said:

blue_skies said:

Anders W said:

blue_skies said:

Anders W said:

rhlpetrus said:

axlotl said:

Perusal of the DXO Mark website will allow anyone, including Corpy2, prepared to pull out the figures to:

a) hazard a guess at the answer to the first question. I guess 4 years. This is the time it took from the Nikon D2Xs in 2006 (score 59) to the Nikon D800 (probably same sensor as Sony A7r) in 2012 (score 95). Of course by then full frame will deliver scores around 120 or whatever but who cares, there is always something "better".

Click to expand...

D2x was APS-C, so it should be comapred to newer APS-C. They have been hitting the 82 mark, about 14 points below the D800e at 96. I doubt that, w/o some trick like multiple sampling, ASP-C or m43 will ever get near D800's performance.

Click to expand...

MFT is about 0.5 EV behind the D800 now across most of the ISO range if we compare at the same exposure and about 1.5 EV ahead if we compare equivalent photos.

Click to expand...

Just add in the RX10 in your graph:

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Comp...pus-OM-D-E-M1-versus-Nikon-D800___918_909_792

Correct me if I am wrong, but all this 'reasoning' now surely favors the RX10?

Click to expand...

Yes, you are right. It seems you are finally starting to come to grips with some of the confusion you have been struggling with for the past few months, starting here:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52517925

As I tried to explain to you already at that point, smaller sensors tend to be more efficient than larger, and this tendency does not stop with MFT but extends to smaller sensors as well.

blue_skies said:

Size-wise, the RX10 : EM-1 : D800 are about 1 : 2 : 8, which tells me that this DR scale is non-linear, not that the E-M1 is somehow 'magical'.

Click to expand...

I am sorry, but here your confusion shows through again. While the difference between the RX10 and the E-M1 at the same ISO is nearly proportional to the difference in sensor area (a one-stop difference across most of the ISO range), the difference between the D800 and the E-M1 is significantly smaller than that (across most of the ISO range). Consequently, the E-M1 sensor does unusually well.

blue_skies said:

Still, the arguments are the same, the E-M1 gains nothing on the RX10, sensor wise.

Click to expand...

Now you are catching up again. For equivalent images, the signal-noise performance of the RX10 sensor is just as good or better than that of the E-M1. One problem that you overlook, however, is that in terms of DoF, the f/2.8 zoom of the RX10 is equivalent to f/8 on FF with regard to DoF. As further explained below, this would lock me in with more DoF than I want more often that I want. With MFT, by contrast, I can go to somewhere between f/3.4 and f/4 with any of the four fast primes I currently use, which is usually enough for my wants and needs. And would I want more than that, there are of course lenses like the Nokton f/0.95s and Panasonic f/1.2 to choose from.

blue_skies said:

If your argument is system-wise, then sure, but so does FF, in a much bigger sense.

Click to expand...

I am afraid that sentence confuses things again. FF sensors are bigger all right. But the point here is that smaller is better for equivalent images.

blue_skies said:

RX10 gives you more DOF anyways, at almost same DR (same as E-M1 to FF 'step') - isn't that what you prefer?

Click to expand...

I'd rather say that I prefer more DR at the same DoF. The RX10 gives me that too to at least some extent, although (as already pointed out), the difference in comparison to the E-M1 is small across most of the ISO scale. As already noted, the E-M1 advantage over the D800 (and even more the A7/A7r) is more pronounced.

blue_skies said:

Please don't tell me that E-M1 is best 'DOF'

Click to expand...

Sorry to have to disappoint you here, but for me it is. Not the E-M1 specifically, but MFT more generally. You see, DoF can be larger than needed as well as insufficient. For my photographic objectives, MFT provides the best balance in this regard. On the one hand, I rarely need or want less DoF than MFT with a fast prime can provide so FF doesn't offer much of an advantage in this regard. On the other hand, I can enjoy the signal-noise advantage I get in comparison with FF for equivalent images. On top of that, I can enjoy the reduced cost in terms of money, bulk, and weight. The reduced bulk and weight in turn buys me more "FL control" which I find of greater importance than the increased "DoF control" I could get with FF.

blue_skies said:

- I can stop down on a larger sensor, but I feel contrived many a times - DOF can be (much) larger than needed, or desired.

Click to expand...

I am sorry to hear that you feel contrived (although I have no problem understanding why). However, I am afraid that less DoF won't help against that feeling. Nor can I see any ready solution if you find the DoF you get with FF insufficiently shallow even with the fastest of FF lenses. Moving on to medium format won't really help you here.

blue_skies said:

Rather than getting hung up on one graph, I like to see pictures. The RX10 is a great travel camera, but lacks the faster lenses of the E-M1, so it is less flexible. The FF cameras have great DR, low light response, ability to use fast lenses and be creative, shallow DOF, etc. I see them as serving three distinct purposes.

Why keep going back to this one graph and reason the heck out of it?

Click to expand...

That is very easy to explain and I honestly thought you had figured out that much by now. The main reason is that you keep ignoring it, keep denying the facts it shows, and/or keeps misunderstanding it.

blue_skies said:

If so, wait for Nikon to update their V cameras with the RX10 sensors - it will be the obvious system everyone should run for. I don't buy it. (Same reasoning for the EM-1, btw).

Click to expand...

Here I am afraid you are falling back into confusion again. As I tried to explain to you earlier on, DoF can be larger than needed as well as insufficient. Whereas MFT keeps the risk that I will be locked in with more DoF than I need at a minimum, the Nikon 1 system does not fare as well in that regard. To that you may add the consideration that there is more to a system than its sensor size. Lens availability for example, which is obviously a consideration in comparison with Sony FE-mount as well.

blue_skies said:

blue_skies said:

blue_skies said:

blue_skies said:

b) answer the second question, (yes), the Olympus EM1 scores 73. The original EOS 5D scored 71 in 2005.

Click to expand...

Canon has been much slower than other sensor developers re QI parameters, especially at base ISO (DR and color depth). Still, I doubt the EM1's IQ actually beats the 5D's, in actual performance.

Click to expand...

Got any evidence to substantiate those doubts?

blue_skies said:

blue_skies said:

In the meantime those of us who use a recent model M43 camera can enjoy image quality better than that offered by full frame cameras just a few years ago and good enough for just about any purpose.

I don't necessarily think DXO Mark scores are the final judgement of image quality, in fact they are probably not, but they are useful for revealing trends, as here.

Click to expand...

The highest scoring m43 is reaching now the level of APS-C of 5-6 years ago (D90).

Click to expand...

Why would we want to look at arbitrary scores?

blue_skies said:

It's ok, pretty good actually, but to say it will keep going up and reach the level of present FF ignores the basic Physics and technological limits of making sensors.

Click to expand...

What physical and technological limits do you have in mind and how do they prevent MFT from reaching parity with FF (or better than that as it currently does) for equivalent photos.

Click to expand...

--
Cheers,
Henry

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Anders, so it is all a personal choice for you then?

Click to expand...

All choices of gear are (or at least should be) personal. What we are (or at least should be) debating are the facts behind those choices and the way they are related to our choices.

blue_skies said:

Can you accept that others find APS-C a better trade-off in the DOF versus IQ comparisons?

Click to expand...

Of course. Why do you ask? I have said nothing to motivate the question.

blue_skies said:

And that there are also those that prefer FF, if they could lose the bulk?

Click to expand...

I can of course accept that some people prefer FF even with the bulk. If you are thinking about the A7/A7r, it doesn't really change the bulk equation that much from my perspective ("FL control"). The lenses stills have to be as large (or larger) as for DSLR FF systems.

blue_skies said:

From my vintage point, stopping down makes a larger sensor equivalent, until diffraction hits.

Click to expand...

While that may be your "vintage" point, the proper vantage point, as shown in considerable detail on numerous occasions (including the present thread) is that this is not the case. The larger sensor will as a rule do less well with regard to signal-noise performance for equivalent images, due to the fact that smaller sensors tend to be more efficient than larger.

blue_skies said:

But a smaller sensor always has large DOF. It is a shooting style, a preference, not a better solution.

Click to expand...

You can't decide what is a better solution until you specify your objectives and requirements. Since my requirements rarely include more "DoF control" than I can get with fast primes on MFT, the latter is a better solution on the grounds I have already stated on multiple occasions: More "FL control" (more lenses in my bag than in a drawer back home thanks to reduced bulk/weight), better signal-noise performance, and a lower price tag.

blue_skies said:

DOF, as quantitative measurement, is subject to conditions and equipment.

Click to expand...

Not sure what you have in mind here, but it seems likely that before long we will have more convincing solutions than those currently available for effectively reducing the DoF in PP whenever someone finds that desirable.

Click to expand...

Anders, all the comments above are fair and square - we do have different 'vantage' points. I respect yours, and I hope that you understand mine.

Also, I agree with your theories and your findings in the context that you have explained.

But I find the context too limiting when comparing formats. Yes, one is more efficient than another, but that is only one part of the difference. There are more elements to it.

Like with cars, the Prius is more efficient. But it comes with trade-offs.

Click to expand...

So what are those other trade-offs in the present context other than the one we have already debated (that it can't trade DoF for signal-noise performance to quite the same extent, which matters only if you want to take that trade further than MFT allows).

blue_skies said:

blue_skies said:

blue_skies said:

Cameras (sensors) and lenses have continuously been getting better, and this 'quantitative' aspect could be revisited.

IQ, as quantitative measurement, is also subject to camera and lenses. It has come up a long way in recent years.

Click to expand...

Yes, so what?

Click to expand...

Lol - your typical comment. So what? Well, it is a continuously changing landscape. Absolutes are time-bound, and arguments have to connect to changes over time as well as observations in a specific time point.

Click to expand...

Could you please exemplify the relevance of your point?

blue_skies said:

blue_skies said:

blue_skies said:

Choosing sufficient DOF and sufficient IQ to me seems to then simply be making trade-offs.

Click to expand...

Absolutely.

blue_skies said:

To me, it is as if you are reasoning from the inverse: the m43 has certain characteristics, which work for you, and then you reason it back into absolutes that this is how it should be.

Click to expand...

Well, that's simply a misunderstanding on your part. You need to read more carefully and think a bit before you post.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, I don't know you well enough. I know that you repeat the same theory a lot, but refrain from engaging in discussions outside your 'well defined' area. Without your defined boundaries, you have a working theories, but I am more questioning the boundaries as I am the theory.

Click to expand...

The "theory" I pressume you are referring to isn't even a theory. It's just an evidence-based generalization.

blue_skies said:

Also the theory seems empirical - based on analysis charts that change when products change.

Click to expand...

Any theory about the real world is by necessity empirical. What non-empirical (i.e., metaphysical) theories do you think merit discussion in the present context?

blue_skies said:

Does it ever occur to you that this efficiency is a design engineers' choice? To extract the most of the given constraints (physical size, geometries, process node, light sensitivity, processor performance, and so on)? In other words, your theory is merely an interpretations of choices.

Click to expand...

The statistical generalization that I have substantiated is a reflection (rather than an interpretation) of design choices (and the physical and technical restrictions that shape this choices). So what?

blue_skies said:

And, as larger sensors have more headroom, their efficiency is not what the engineers necessarily optimize for.

Click to expand...

No. Larger sensors do not have more "headroom" (given the conventional use of the word "headroom").

blue_skies said:

I am thinking like the engineers here - what to optimize when. You are pointing to empirical data and build a theory around it. Fair, your theory holds, but only within the context that you draw.

Click to expand...

As already pointed out, I didn't build a theory. I simply made a claim that takes the form of a statistical generalization and substantiated it.

blue_skies said:

blue_skies said:

blue_skies said:

I am still on a very different planet: so what if efficiency is non-linear?

Click to expand...

Yes, I think you are indeed on a "different planet" here. Noone has to my knowledge even discussed the non-linearity of efficiency. What we know is that smaller sensors tend to be more efficient than larger and that the tendency appears to be rather monotonic.

Click to expand...

Ok, have it your way. But the smaller sensor is still smaller. Perhaps not 'geometrically' smaller, but still smaller. That is the other part of why I keep belaboring it.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone has disputed that a smaller sensor is smaller.

blue_skies said:

You overlook that by limiting this to 'equivalence' areas. I do not. I am happy to trade DOF.

Click to expand...

I am not overlooking that. What makes you think I do?

blue_skies said:

blue_skies said:

blue_skies said:

I can get something out of a FF camera that I cannot get out of a m43 camera. And that makes my choice easy.

Click to expand...

Well, what you get out of it with regard to the issue discussed in this thread (sensor signal-noise performance and DoF) is slightly better signal-noise performance when shooting at very shallow DoF and worse signal-noise performance when you don't.

blue_skies said:

Because it disagrees with your preferences, I must be wrong?

Click to expand...

No. As repeatedly stressed, my disagreement with you is about facts rather than preferences.

Click to expand...

Well, I can shoot FF at higher ISO with the same fast lens than I can the m43. It gives me more options. I am not talking equivalence here (e.g. f/1.8 ISO 1600 on m43 versus f/3.6 ISO 6400 on FF) but I am talking different response (e.g. f/1.8 ISO 6400 on FF - I have a lot more extra light sensitivity).

Click to expand...

No you don't. The total amount of light falling on the sensor is larger than with MFT at the same exposure. But since the sensor is less efficient, you can't enjoy the full benefits, just the full downsides with regard to loss of DoF.

blue_skies said:

But somehow this reasoning is fact less and holds no evidence.

Click to expand...

No it isn't factless. Rather, your facts are wrong (again).

blue_skies said:

Where is the missing fact? I changed DOF, so what?

Click to expand...

See above.

blue_skies said:

blue_skies said:

blue_skies said:

Perhaps the m43 is the 'most efficient' and this could mean that it is the 'best' trade-off, but this comes across a bit pedantic alike saying that we all should be driving Prius cars. Last time that I checked, we have many more choices, and the 'trade-off's of such a choice is something that we all make.

Click to expand...

That smaller sensors tend to be more efficient than larger with respect to signal-noise performance is an example of a fact.

Click to expand...

YES, WE AGREE TO YOUR ANALYSIS, BUT THE LARGER SENSOR HAS A HIGHER SIGNAL-NOISE PERFORMANCE

Click to expand...

If you had actually understood my analysis, and agreed with it, as you say you do, you'd instead say that the smaller sensor has a higher signal-noise performance for equivalent photos. You would then add that in those special circumstance where you want, or can accept, even less DoF than the smaller sensor can provide with suitable lenses, then the larger sensor has a higher signal-noise performance.

blue_skies said:

Therefore, the larger sensor cameras brings benefits that you choose to ignore.

Click to expand...

No, I haven't ignorned any such benefits. On the contrary, I have spelled them out precisely.

blue_skies said:

Preferences, not absolutes. Absolute is that the larger sensor camera has HIGHER performance.

Click to expand...

Now you are confused again ...

blue_skies said:

The smaller sensor camera has MORE EFFICIENT performance.

Click to expand...

... but back on the right track here.

blue_skies said:

I am being very specific now.

Click to expand...

Yes, I can see that. Not sure that helps much.

blue_skies said:

blue_skies said:

Whether MFT as a system is the most efficient depends not only on that (and other) facts but also on the objectives and requirements of the individual photographer.

Click to expand...

Disagree, you keep touting sensor efficiency and photographer's choice. If the 1/2.3" BSI sensor turns out the be THE MOST efficient sensor, we therefore MUST all start shooting with P&S?

Click to expand...

No. Please try to remember what I said, at least from one post to the next, so that you don't have to ask the same questions over and over. Here are a few pertinent quotes from things I have already told you in the course of the thread and which I thought (mistakenly) that you might have read and understood.

For equivalent images, the signal-noise performance of the RX10 sensor is just as good or better than that of the E-M1. One problem that you overlook, however, is that in terms of DoF, the f/2.8 zoom of the RX10 is equivalent to f/8 on FF with regard to DoF. As further explained below, this would lock me in with more DoF than I want more often that I want. With MFT, by contrast, I can go to somewhere between f/3.4 and f/4 with any of the four fast primes I currently use, which is usually enough for my wants and needs. And would I want more than that, there are of course lenses like the Nokton f/0.95s and Panasonic f/1.2 to choose from.

......

As I tried to explain to you earlier on, DoF can be larger than needed as well as insufficient. Whereas MFT keeps the risk that I will be locked in with more DoF than I need at a minimum, the Nikon 1 system does not fare as well in that regard. To that you may add the consideration that there is more to a system than its sensor size. Lens availability for example, which is obviously a consideration in comparison with Sony FE-mount as well.

blue_skies said:

I don't think so.

Click to expand...

Neither do I, as I think everyone but you have long since understood.

blue_skies said:

Nothing applies to m43 in this sense either - just YOUR preference.

Click to expand...

What distinguishes MFT from cameras with still smaller sensors is explained (again) in the passages quoted just above.

blue_skies said:

blue_skies said:

blue_skies said:

So, efficiency aside, can we simply then conclude that you have chosen a personal preference for you, after 35years of photography, that works for you, but that others may simply have different preferences?

Click to expand...

As pointed out before, I have no difficulties disagreeing about preferences as long as we can agree about the facts. The reason we have difficulties is that you refuse to get the facts right.

Click to expand...

I think that it is the other way around. In context, you make absolute claims. I challenge that by questioning the context, not the claim. You then belabor back that I do not understand, or am not willing to understand, the evidence.

Click to expand...

You may possibly think that way but that's a mistake on your part.

blue_skies said:

Well, excuse me, but the context is very telling between formats. And it is a PREFERENCE choice, not an absolute MUST MAKE choice. You made your choice, that is obvious. As for the rest of us, we are considering a larger context. Is that so hard to understand?

Click to expand...

Like many of the things you say, it cannot possibly be understood since it is not true. You are not considering a larger context than the one I am considering. If you actually think so, please specify what you have in mind and I'll be happy to correct you.

blue_skies said:

blue_skies said:

blue_skies said:

There is no misunderstanding as to personal choices, only as to absolute statements that keep telling that one's choice is incorrect. So what, I am not driving a Prius, should I?

Click to expand...

You are of course perfectly free to drive and shoot anything you like. If you give us an incorrect factual statement to back up that choice, as you do time and again, be prepared to have that statement disputed.

Click to expand...

Fair, and very open to it. But please understand where I am coming from (my 'vintage' point, lol). IF sensor efficiency is the overriding goal, then you make a great case for smaller sensors (and not necessarily m43 - that is another discussion). But if OTHER FACTORS play a meaningful role, and we know what they are, your arguments must take this into account.

Click to expand...

Again, please try to read, comprehend, and remember what I have said and not. Nowhere have I claimed that sensor efficiency is the overriding goal. If it were, then I'd be shooting a phone cam rather than MFT. I don't and I have explained why. I have also explained in quite some detail what my other considerations are. I additionally hoped you would have read, understood, and remembered the following summary from the previous post:

That smaller sensors tend to be more efficient than larger with respect to signal-noise performance is an example of a fact. Whether MFT as a system is the most efficient depends not only on that (and other) facts but also on the objectives and requirements of the individual photographer.

blue_skies said:

In my personal experience, smaller sensors need more highlight protection than larger sensors, as they are more prone to highlights blow-out. This factor alone changes so many things (for me).

Click to expand...

No. Smaller sensors are not more prone to highlight clipping than larger sensors. This is yet another factual misunderstanding on your part.

blue_skies said:

All examples that I see, all evidence, ignore such highlights (sun, lamps). It is with such examples that I question a lot of the theory - but I am not researching this topic. I am just commenting on what I see in real life: highlight protection affects the (required) DR in an image, and it benefits the larger sensors more than the smaller sensors (shadow noise).

Click to expand...

The only thing that is correct here is that highlight protection sometimes require high recorded DR, as for example in this MFT image (already posted in one of my replies to Kim) which has more recorded DR than any current FF (or MF) camera can manage in a single shot.

blue_skies said:

There is a reason that smaller sensors shooters tend to shoot at low(est) ISO, right?

Click to expand...

Yes. There is also a reason why larger-sensor shooters tend to do the same (when they can). It happens to be exactly the same reason.

blue_skies said:

Larger sensor users may just behave 'iso-less' - focus on DOF, aperture, shutter speed, and let ISO follow.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately (from your point of view), larger-sensor users are no more exempt from the laws of physics than anyone else.

blue_skies said:

Big difference in my mind.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately (from your point of view), that difference exists in your mind only.

Now Henry, you know what: I am a pretty patient guy. But explaining the same things to you over and over again just because you didn't read, didn't comprehend, and/or didn't remember what I have already said is getting a bit tedious. So before replying again, please read all my messages to you in this thread again, carefully and slowly this time, and try hard to comprehend and remember what I said. If anything is still unclear after that, I'll be happy to fill you in.

Click to expand...

Anders, that is a beautiful image that you post, but I cannot understand its relevance. It is stripped from all EXIF data, and when I open it up in lightroom, it seems to be severely exposed to the left (ETTL) to protect highlights. Isn't that supporting my point?

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

The scene is such that it can be MFNR, long exposure, layered, HDR, focus stacking, and it may be at ISO 100, or even lower. I can't tell from the image, other than that this is not supporting the discussion that we were having above.

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

I don't understand why we cannot get past a basic point: you belabor that a smaller sensor is more efficient, I belabor that a larger sensor produces a larger SNR ratio in the end. We are both correct, but agreeing with each other is more meaningful that reiterating ones positions.

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

It is like saying that the Prius is the most fuel-efficient car and me pointing out that its acceleration is substandard, and that other, less efficient, cars are faster.

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

Fuel-efficiency, or sensor-efficiency, is not the only measure. I keep point to other factors, but you simply shrug them off as non-important.

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

Again, the image that you show, wonderful as it is, does not explain your claims. Please give us a blog about it - how was it made, can we repeat your process, what was critical about it?

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

I can see such an image being made with a variety of cameras with a number of different techniques.

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

You say that f/8 on the FF is more DOF than you want, but then you point out that you use f/4 on the MFT. Isn't that the same DOF in the end? Why is the MFT superior? I simply do not see your point.

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

Your point, as I understand it, is that, UNDER EQUIVALENT SETTINGS, the smaller sensor produces a better SNR than the larger sensor. And I already agreed to that many threads ago.

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

My point is that, with the larger sensor, I have the possibility to use NON-EQUIVALENT SETTINGS, enabling me a larger kaleidoscope of choices. You simply keep repeating: wrong, wrong, wrong!

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

Well, from my pov, you shoot the MFT the way you shoot it because it gives you the best results. What is wrong with someone shooting FF and getting the best results he or she can, but completely changing the equivalence: different DOF, different techniques, different approaches.

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

Let's take the example that you give, and let's map it to a lens FL, an ISO, an aperture, throw in pixel-count and then compare side by side. How does FF stack up now?

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

And, if MFNR and post-processing techniques are involved, do these really care about the sensor format?

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

Let me state it the other way around: if m43 is ABSOLUTELY the BEST trade off between noise, DOF, sensor efficiency, economy, size and so on - why is not every camera maker producing m43 based cameras in a hurry and leaving the other formats?

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

FF has an allure to it as it DID become a best trade off of noise, DOF, film efficiency, economy, size, and so on in its days. The digital sensors may shift (per your 'efficiency' theory), but the plethora of lenses, the history of images - both stopped down and wide open - the reference library that exist - it all counts for something.

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

The trade off that was made, in DSLR era, was to go APS-C. Mainly for cost reasons.

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

MFT is just another one of those trade-offs, but it begins to squeeze the DOF side of things - it is too far away from FF. Perhaps not in portrait mode, as it is a more square format, but in 3:2 formats it is.

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

The 1" sensors are coming along just as fine as m43 sensors. Per your own theory, they are more efficient, and when fast lenses are available, we should embrace them too.

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

Consider the progress in TV sensors - I mean, these are small sensor (with lower output), and they have come a way as well.

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

Why not agreeing that m43 is a choice, a shooting style, but that is just what it is. It works for you, great. But it is not challenging FF at its core. Sensor efficiency is not the main reason, it is an integral part. Sensor resolution is another one.

And for the life of me, I cannot understand why a smaller, more efficient sensor, which has LOWER SNR than a larger, less efficient sensor, would be preferred? If someone wants the absolute best, wouldn't they go as large as possible?

If someone wants convenience - they make a choice. And this I have repeatedly stated: m43 is a choice. For some it is their best option, for others it is not.

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

Anders W said:

blue_skies said:

Lumixdude said:

blue_skies said:

There is a reason that smaller sensors shooters tend to shoot at low(est) ISO, right?

Cheers,
Henry

Click to expand...

There is a reason why people should learn how to use a camera, ISO should be the last possible adjustment you use if there is no other option due to the way it degrades image quality. It should be:

1) Buy a faster lens that is sharp wide open

2) adjust aperture and exposure values

3) IF you still cannot get your shot on an extremely rare occasion that you've got your lenses in the range of F/0.95 to F/2.8 for then think adjusting your ISO, but not until.

Let the lens do its job and not the camera body. It's way to often that I see people on DPreview with their ISO blasted way high when it was simply not necessary to achieve the shot that was taken.

This is simply poor camera skills particularly on Micro Four Thirds for two reasons

1) You have a fairly wide depth of field anyway so you don't need to stop down as much

2) You don't have the ISO headroom anyway...

As I said, if you want better camera skills, learn to shoot with a compact and then come back to this debate. There should almost never be a need to have your ISO above 3200 let alone some of the ridiculous shots where you see people out at ISO64000. If you know how to make the most out of your lenses, you simply wont need more than the ISO range that Micro Four Thirds has anyway.

Click to expand...

Ok, let me walk you through this.

You are shooting e.g. f/2.0 at ISO 400 on the m43.

In FF equivalency, this is f/4.0 at ISO 1600. A fairly mid level value for both aperture and ISO. You have 4 stops down to f/1.4 (4.0, 2.8, 2.0, 1.4) and 5 ISO stops (1600, 800, 400, 200, 100).

Going the other way, to f/16 you have 5 stops (4.0, 5.6, 8.0, 11.0, 16.0) and to ISO 12800 you have 4 stops (1600, 3200, 6400, 12800).

So, you f/2.0 and ISO 400 is a fairly flexible spot, in equivalency, for an FF shooter.

Now, on m43, you have one stop down (2.0, 1.4) and 3 stops in ISO (400, 200, 100). Going up you have 5 stops (2.0, 2.8, 4.0, 5.6, 8.0) and in ISO you have 3 stops (400, 800, 1600), four if you push to 3200.

(I know, there is also f/22, and f/11 - I ignore those).

So, FF: -4, -5 to +5, +4 versus m43: -2, -3, +5, +4

So, both have the same 'up-scale', but the FF down-scale is much longer. See that? It looks to me that FF has a broader range. I can go up and down. In m43, I can only go up - no wonder you guys talk going down, well, down Blame it on shallow DOF. What about the low ISO? It is there too - see that?

Or FF covers the m43 range, but not the other way around.

If you want to shoot ISO-less, as you are describing, you need a sensor with a fairly broad ISO range. Looks to me that a larger sensor would be preferred - I have more workable ISO stops.

Click to expand...

Hmm. That's a theory based on the premise that the large sensor is as efficient as the smaller one. Now what do we know about the validity of that premise?

Click to expand...

Lol, round-off noise. The smaller sensor does not hold up against the larger sensor. Not in real-life images, only in those with reduced DR without highlights. But don't take my word for it.

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

blue_skies said:

blue_skies said:

blue_skies said:

1) You have a fairly wide depth of field anyway so you don't need to stop down as much

Click to expand...

Which is of course because, in FF equivalent terms, you are already stopped down that much. So, what is wrong with the FF shooter stopping down to equivalent values? That his sensor is less efficient, and his noise floor comes up?

Click to expand...

That is a problem faced by the FF shooter, yes.

Click to expand...

Yes, but he starts at a larger SNR to begin with - that was my point, he has more room.

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

blue_skies said:

blue_skies said:

The FF shooter knows what noise he can tolerate, so he will balance that his way.

Click to expand...

Why would an MFT shooter know less or be less apt at that? Judging by the evidence provided by this thread (and others on the MFT forum), it tends to be the other way around.

Click to expand...

Not less apt - he merely has less flexibility - needs to go to long SS to handle noise. Or MFNR.

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

blue_skies said:

blue_skies said:

blue_skies said:

2) You don't have the ISO headroom anyway...

Click to expand...

Not in m43 terms. Usable noise levels, per DxO are ISO 800 for E-M1 and ISO 2200 for A7. So, in our example above, the m43 only gets ISO 400 and ISO 800, whereas the A7 only gets ISO 1600 and ISO 2200 (ok, 3200 when we push). Looks to me that the headroom is the same.

Click to expand...

It's a bit dangerous to reason on the basis of measurements you don't understand. Have a look here.

Click to expand...

The world according to Garp? How do you know what I do and don't understand? Because you and I disagree, I must be wrong? Hmmm....

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

blue_skies said:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/ima...&x=-0.12135275891621061&y=-1.0531943554552896

Click to expand...

And what are we looking at? Pure RAW or cooked RAW?

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

Why aren't the JPG converted outputs showing this same difference?

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

Also, highlights on the dpr image are not like typical low-light highlights that I encounter - either they blow out, or there is shadow noise. Not sure that the dpr scene properly reviews this.

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

Not sure that the DxO graph handles such cases either.

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

blue_skies said:

As I hope you can see, the A7 at 3200 is noisier than the E-M1 at 800. As I hope you can also see, the A7 at 3200 is noisier than the E-M1 at 1600 as well. Now why do you think that's the case?

Click to expand...

I just disagreed with your evidence, so you cannot continue leading to a conclusion?

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

blue_skies said:

blue_skies said:

But - the m43 then only has ISO 100, 200, 400, and 800. The A7 then has ISO 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200. That is 50% more - big difference, imho.

Click to expand...

Differences are of interest to the extent that they are true. That isn't the case here on several grounds.

Click to expand...

Lol, you disagree with the evidence? Just when does the m43 sensor start showing noise? Versus the FF sensor?

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

And just how does this come out in the shadow noise - lower DR means more noise, earlier.

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

Again, charts, analysis, are all great. But throw in a picture with a bright light source, and your analysis falls apart - the m43 image will have to show halo's and blow-outs, or has to content with more shadow noise.

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

You keep saying no-no-no, but I have yet to see evidence of any such reasoning. Why not side-by-side pictures.

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

I can see the difference between APS-C and FF already. Why would m43 be 'magical' and better FF? Answer - it does not.

blue_skies said:

blue_skies said:

Anyways, this is getting off topic, but I have heard the arguments a lot that ISO 100 is best, and IBIS is your friend. So, lower ISO and lengthen exposure - at least for m43 sensors.

Click to expand...

A good idea for any sensor when you can. Of course, IBIS significantly enhances the prospects that you can.

Click to expand...

Well, IBIS is three stops. On FF, I can raise ISO the same three stops without getting a noisier image. The need for IBIS is not as profound, especially when 1/FL is manageable as SS.

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

blue_skies said:

blue_skies said:

For FF sensors, I rarely hear this. IS is often ignored, as shutter speeds can be kept high, and ISO 1600 is so noise free that no one thinks too much about ISO - it is about the exposure parameters first, as you suggested in the beginning of your post.

Click to expand...

All of that sounds pretty worrisome. High time for FF users to study up it seems.

Click to expand...

??? What about all these ISO-less sensor discussions then? No longer valid?

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

blue_skies said:

blue_skies said:

So, I have several sharp f/1.4 and f/1.8 FF lenses.

Click to expand...

Judging by your gear list, you have one of each (CV 35/1.4 and CV 75/1.8).

Click to expand...

Lol, litterally? Do I need to list out every SLR (OM and MD) lens too - they are in the gear list.

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

blue_skies said:

blue_skies said:

Would I need faster? I think I have most covered.

Click to expand...

Faster? No. Sharper? Yes, if you like to shoot wide open, as it appears you do.

Click to expand...

That is why I like the RF lenses - sharp wide open. Ever tried them?

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

They don't work as well on m43 - too tight of a pixel pitch and 2x crop factor. Oh well.

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

blue_skies said:

blue_skies said:

Back to my example - a smaller sensor shooter, by necessity, prefers lower ISO.

Click to expand...

So do knowledgeable FF shooters.

Click to expand...

Hinting at what? Your bias against FF shooters? Or your bias for m43?

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

blue_skies said:

blue_skies said:

Fair, you have more DOF, which is great.

Click to expand...

Glad you recognize that.

blue_skies said:

But a larger sensor shooter matches exposure and FL/aperture to his liking.

Click to expand...

I am afraid you are mistaken if you think this option is reserved for larger-sensor shooter.

Click to expand...

Picky? The FF shooter has more choices, that's all.

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

blue_skies said:

blue_skies said:

Then ISO falls out. He will shoot at whatever ISO is required.

Click to expand...

Happens to all of us, doesn't it?

Click to expand...

Not really, I see MFNR as a valid way to handle smaller sensors versus bumping ISO. But it doesn't work all that well for single-shots, fast subject movement or high SS.

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

The FF shooter can plan a single shot, even at high ISO, and get a workable result. The m43 shooter cannot, he will face (too) high ISO or (too) long SS.

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

blue_skies said:

blue_skies said:

But isn't that your claim? Yes, but it applies to the larger format shooter - see that?

Click to expand...

No. You can't see what isn't there to be seen.

Click to expand...

Or you can't see what you don't want to see.

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

blue_skies said:

blue_skies said:

Anyways, we are getting off topic - my point, which you highlighted, is now explained, I guess.

Click to expand...

Your guess is incorrect.

Click to expand...

Time to stop guessing, your comment is incorrect. Read the further exchanges in which we came around round robin, making my guess the correct one.

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

Anders, you believe in a theory, and work very hard to belabor it. But please, get a friend with a FF camera, and do some side-by-side shooting, of real life events. Where there is an overlap, we are in agreement, both cameras can be used to handle a broad range of topics. But when it comes to low light shots, the FF pulls ahead, despite all your efforts to disprove that.

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

You are simply wrong - charts, graphs, analysis does not display what I see: if you protect for highlights, you are at a disadvantage with a smaller sensor.

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

I think that you actually know this, and that your 'high DR' images are just that: HDR. They are multiple images blended, or (very) long exposures at lowest ISO - typical for HDR scenes, but only applicable to static scenes, and not all that useful for handheld work.

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

I say it one more time: the design engineers have to make smaller sensor cameras more efficient to increase their usability levels.

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

This is not required for larger sensors.

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

So the efficiency can be viewed as different -

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

however, the larger sensor bring many other benefits that you either choose to ignore or are completely unaware of.

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

I value your experience, and I see some wonderful images in your gallery.

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

But it appears that you are not willing to explore data and examples that connect to the real world.

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

Don't take it from me - I see you being snarky to a number of FF shooters that raise comments here. I understand that this is not their forum, but they come with an experience - not a theory.

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

this debate is becoming stale.

In the earlier graph reports, the m43 sensor has a narrow DR than the FF sensor. Perhaps not geometrically proportional ...which goes into the efficiency debate

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

But, to my point, and again shown in images: if I shoot under low light / higher ISO, I do not shoot a 18% gray card. I have highlights, and I do not want them blown out. I have learned that highlight blowout relates to pixel-size, not sensor size. However, the larger FF sensor has much larger pixels than the smaller sensor, so it somehow still correlates.

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

If I properly expose, for highlight protection, I effectlvely reduce the DR. (Technically, I don't, but since the highlights are merely just that, the effect is that the DR compresses for other objects in the image).

So, the smaller sensor, with less DR, reduces accordingly - the effect is that the graph does not apply as is being argued, and that shadow noise comes up faster in the smaller sensors.

In comparison, we compound the measure again by using PP tools - a lot can be overcome there as well, but I accept the PP flow as 'getting the best'.

Now, I have seen a number of side by side posters, first with Nex-7 versus E-M5, later with A7/r versus E-M1, and each time such images appeared we have had debates. In all these debates my point has held up.

Why disregard all that and point to one graph? The graph does not explain my point.

Oh, and I can pull up the noise by blowing out the highlights - but that is exactly my point again, is it not?

Anders shows a beautiful low-light HDR shot - my question is "how is that made?" and "how can I reproduce that with m43"? The histogram on that shot supports my claim even stronger as it shows a very high peak at the far left, with almost nothing towards the right.

Click to expand...

knickerhawk said:

Lab D said:

Anders W said:

blue_skies said:

If you want to shoot ISO-less, as you are describing, you need a sensor with a fairly broad ISO range. Looks to me that a larger sensor would be preferred - I have more workable ISO stops.

Click to expand...

Hmm. That's a theory based on the premise that the large sensor is as efficient as the smaller one. Now what do we know about the validity of that premise?

Click to expand...

That is the classic question that weeds out the honest posters from the dishonest ones.

No matter what DxO measurements say, no matter what users experiences are, and no matter how well and often I have seen you explain this, there are a few individuals who will cover their eyes and ears, deny and distract, and try desperately to change the subject, in order to avoid giving an honest answer.

With that one question you can tell who are sincere and who are here only for a "purpose".

Click to expand...

I'm fascinated by how these "debates" proceed when it's quite clear that one participant is wrong and the other is right and yet the back-and-forth continues on and on. Is it intentional or "purposeful" as you suggest? Is it dishonesty brought on by some kind of agenda? I tend to think not. I prefer to apply lessons from the philosophy/history of science where we often see issues work themselves out over surprisingly long periods of time. Quite often, the "wrong" side of history never gives up in the belief of the superiority of their position and resolution only comes about because they increasingly become the minority and eventually die off, to be replaced by a younger generation that didn't need to cling to an older paradigm and can see the whole issue more objectively because they lack presumption and "experience" driven biases.

"Experience" leads one to narrow-mindedness as often as it leads one to wisdom.

Click to expand...

Anders W said:

Look Henry. Since you are unable or unwilling to learn, and unable or unwilling to stick to the rules of rational discourse, I am giving up on you. Since, moreover, I am sure that those readers that I care about have already got the message long ago, let me conclude the exchange between us by the following summary, which simultaneously addresses your last three paragraphs above.

What you like to think is the following: My newly acquired FF A7 camera allows me to do everything at least as well as any MFT camera can. On top of that, it can also do a number of things that MFT cameras cannot do or cannot do as well. MFT cameras are less expensive and offer conveniences when it comes to bulk and weight. Consequently, they are OK for those amateurs who do not really care that much about image quality. But for those who do, FF is the only way to go.

What I have shown is that this line of thinking is in error. For a number of reasons, your A7 can't do everything at least as well as any MFT camera can. On the contrary, it will in some cases be inferior. Consequently, the choice between your camera and MFT is not only a matter of expense and convenience (although that may be why some people prefer MFT) but also a matter of photographic objectives and requirements. Even if you are not afraid to spend as much money or carry as much gear as you do and even if you care just as much about image quality as you do, you may (depending on what your personal objectives and requirements are) have factual reasons to prefer MFT. I have already explained at some length what those reasons might be so I won't repeat them here.

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

knickerhawk said:

Lab D said:

Anders W said:

blue_skies said:

If you want to shoot ISO-less, as you are describing, you need a sensor with a fairly broad ISO range. Looks to me that a larger sensor would be preferred - I have more workable ISO stops.

Click to expand...

Hmm. That's a theory based on the premise that the large sensor is as efficient as the smaller one. Now what do we know about the validity of that premise?

Click to expand...

That is the classic question that weeds out the honest posters from the dishonest ones.

No matter what DxO measurements say, no matter what users experiences are, and no matter how well and often I have seen you explain this, there are a few individuals who will cover their eyes and ears, deny and distract, and try desperately to change the subject, in order to avoid giving an honest answer.

With that one question you can tell who are sincere and who are here only for a "purpose".

Click to expand...

I'm fascinated by how these "debates" proceed when it's quite clear that one participant is wrong and the other is right and yet the back-and-forth continues on and on. Is it intentional or "purposeful" as you suggest? Is it dishonesty brought on by some kind of agenda? I tend to think not. I prefer to apply lessons from the philosophy/history of science where we often see issues work themselves out over surprisingly long periods of time. Quite often, the "wrong" side of history never gives up in the belief of the superiority of their position and resolution only comes about because they increasingly become the minority and eventually die off, to be replaced by a younger generation that didn't need to cling to an older paradigm and can see the whole issue more objectively because they lack presumption and "experience" driven biases.

"Experience" leads one to narrow-mindedness as often as it leads one to wisdom.

Click to expand...

I wish I had an agenda then all this would perhaps be more purposeful.

Lab D has been provoking many on different forums,

Click to expand...

Lab D said:

blue_skies said:

this debate is becoming stale.

In the earlier graph reports, the m43 sensor has a narrow DR than the FF sensor. Perhaps not geometrically proportional ...which goes into the efficiency debate

Click to expand...

I didn't know there was a debate. It is obvious from the measurements. If water temperture is measured several times and found to be 50 degrees, then there is no debate. If the latest FF sensors and M43 sensors are measured at multiple ISOs and a difference between them is found to be less than 2 stops, there should be no debate.

I see you agree now and admit that the difference is not geometrically proportional. That will help the discussion move along and end it being stale. Thank you for this.

Click to expand...

• QE (Quantum Efficiency -- the proportion of photons falling on the sensor that release electrons)
• Read Noise (the additional noise added by the sensor and supporting hardware)

Lab D said:

blue_skies said:

knickerhawk said:

Lab D said:

Anders W said:

blue_skies said:

If you want to shoot ISO-less, as you are describing, you need a sensor with a fairly broad ISO range. Looks to me that a larger sensor would be preferred - I have more workable ISO stops.

Click to expand...

Hmm. That's a theory based on the premise that the large sensor is as efficient as the smaller one. Now what do we know about the validity of that premise?

Click to expand...

That is the classic question that weeds out the honest posters from the dishonest ones.

No matter what DxO measurements say, no matter what users experiences are, and no matter how well and often I have seen you explain this, there are a few individuals who will cover their eyes and ears, deny and distract, and try desperately to change the subject, in order to avoid giving an honest answer.

With that one question you can tell who are sincere and who are here only for a "purpose".

Click to expand...

I'm fascinated by how these "debates" proceed when it's quite clear that one participant is wrong and the other is right and yet the back-and-forth continues on and on. Is it intentional or "purposeful" as you suggest? Is it dishonesty brought on by some kind of agenda? I tend to think not. I prefer to apply lessons from the philosophy/history of science where we often see issues work themselves out over surprisingly long periods of time. Quite often, the "wrong" side of history never gives up in the belief of the superiority of their position and resolution only comes about because they increasingly become the minority and eventually die off, to be replaced by a younger generation that didn't need to cling to an older paradigm and can see the whole issue more objectively because they lack presumption and "experience" driven biases.

"Experience" leads one to narrow-mindedness as often as it leads one to wisdom.

Click to expand...

I wish I had an agenda then all this would perhaps be more purposeful.

Lab D has been provoking many on different forums,

Click to expand...

Attack the poster and blame everyone else if you can't win the argument. Nice tactic. I can see why so many of your posts get deleted. Can we get back to the topic now?

Click to expand...

Lab D said:

The arguement is very simple. Pick the smallest (Which means most efficient) sensor that gives you the shallow DoF you need. If you always need razor thin DoF, then FF is for you. For me and most here, M43 is capable of very thin DoF and also the wider DoF needed far more often.

Click to expand...

Great Bustard said:

Lab D said:

blue_skies said:

this debate is becoming stale.

In the earlier graph reports, the m43 sensor has a narrow DR than the FF sensor. Perhaps not geometrically proportional ...which goes into the efficiency debate

Click to expand...

I didn't know there was a debate. It is obvious from the measurements. If water temperture is measured several times and found to be 50 degrees, then there is no debate. If the latest FF sensors and M43 sensors are measured at multiple ISOs and a difference between them is found to be less than 2 stops, there should be no debate.

I see you agree now and admit that the difference is not geometrically proportional. That will help the discussion move along and end it being stale. Thank you for this.

Click to expand...

...ingredients in sensor efficiency:

• QE (Quantum Efficiency -- the proportion of photons falling on the sensor that release electrons)
• Read Noise (the additional noise added by the sensor and supporting hardware)

For sensors of the same generation, the QE is remarkably consistent across sensors, regardless of brand, pixel count, or sensor size, but there is considerable variability in the read noise.

For the bulk of most photos, the photon noise is the dominant source of noise. As the same total amount of light falls on the sensor for equivalent photos (same DOF and shutter speed), and the QE for sensors of the same generation are pretty much the same, the photon noise is the same, and the dominant source of noise for most of the photo.

However, the less light that the photo is made from, the more the read noise matters. At lighting where one would be using higher ISO settings (say, ISO 3200), the read noise begins to make a marked impact, which only increases as the light gets lower.

DPR's studio test:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/ima...6_3=12800&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0&y=0

clearly shows that at ISO 12800, the Nikon Df, D4, and Canon 6D are all quite comparable to the Olympus EM1 at ISO 3200 (the D4 a tad better, the 6D a tad worse).

If we go to ISO 25600 on the EM1 and ISO 102400 with the FF sensors, we see greater differentiation, with the D4 being slightly better than the EM1, and the Df and 6D doing markedly worse.

At low ISOs, we see little difference between them, as photon noise dominates.

If we repeat with high MP FF sensors:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/ima...6_3=12800&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0&y=0

we see that they fare considerably worse than the low MP FF sensors at higher ISOs.

The reason is because the pixel read noise does not scale with the dimensions of the pixel. For example, if we had a 12 MP sensor and a 48 MP sensor with the same read noise per pixel, then the 48 MP sensor would be considerably more noisy at the higher ISO settings. However, if the read noise per pixel of the 48 MP sensor were half the read noise per pixel for the 12 MP sensor, then the noise would be the same. Reality is closer to the same read noise per pixel at higher ISOs than it is to read noise scaling with the size of the pixel. Thus, at higher ISOs, sensors with more pixels tend to be more noisy.

So, for shooting deep DOFs with higher shutter speeds in lower light, sensors with fewer pixels will hold an advantage.

In any event, if the manner in which you'd use a larger sensor system is primarily to shoot the same DOF and shutter speed as a smaller sensor system, then you would most likely be better served with the smaller sensor system, since, at best, the larger sensor system would merely match its noise performance. That said, performance in other areas, both in terms of IQ and operation, may still make one, or the other, system preferable to the other, even for equivalent photos.

Click to expand...

Great Bustard said:

That said, performance in other areas, both in terms of IQ and operation, may still make one, or the other, system preferable to the other, even for equivalent photos.

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

blue_skies said:

The arguement is very simple. Pick the smallest (Which means most efficient) sensor that gives you the shallow DoF you need. If you always need razor thin DoF, then FF is for you. For me and most here, M43 is capable of very thin DoF and also the wider DoF needed far more often.

Click to expand...

So?

That is adding nothing to the debate. Be happy with what you have, ok?

Click to expand...

Corpy2 said:

Ulfric M Douglas said:

Corpy2 said:

I'm not a troll. ...

Still, the other day I wandered past B&H's Sony booth, and tried out the A7R, more for curiosity than anything else. The IQ was, um, really good....

Click to expand...

How could you tell?

Are you saying you took some pictures and right there and then viewed them on a huge monitor or printed them out?

Please don't say you looked at them on the LCD ...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

Great Bustard said:

In any event, if the manner in which you'd use a larger sensor system is primarily to shoot the same DOF and shutter speed as a smaller sensor system, then you would most likely be better served with the smaller sensor system, since, at best, the larger sensor system would merely match its noise performance. That said, performance in other areas, both in terms of IQ and operation, may still make one, or the other, system preferable to the other, even for equivalent photos..

Click to expand...

Thank you Joseph, at least one person here agrees with me!

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

(And for completeness - I do agree with the 'smallest sensor' being 'best' for equivalent (exposed) images - that was never my quarrel here).

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

--
Cheers,
Henry

Click to expand...

Lab D said:

blue_skies said:

Lab D said:

The arguement is very simple. Pick the smallest (Which means most efficient) sensor that gives you the shallow DoF you need. If you always need razor thin DoF, then FF is for you. For me and most here, M43 is capable of very thin DoF and also the wider DoF needed far more often.

Click to expand...

So?

That is adding nothing to the debate. Be happy with what you have, ok?

Click to expand...

Let's try this. Do you agree with Great Bustard when he says?

“if the manner in which you'd use a larger sensor system is primarily to shoot the same DOF and shutter speed as a smaller sensor system, then you would most likely be better served with the smaller sensor system, since, at best, the larger sensor system would merely match its noise performance.”

This is the common ground we can meet at, rather than your continued personal attacks and avoiding of topics.

This is a simple "yes" or "no" question. "So?" is not an vaild answer.

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

Lab D said:

blue_skies said:

blue_skies said:

The arguement is very simple. Pick the smallest (Which means most efficient) sensor that gives you the shallow DoF you need. If you always need razor thin DoF, then FF is for you. For me and most here, M43 is capable of very thin DoF and also the wider DoF needed far more often.

Click to expand...

So?

That is adding nothing to the debate. Be happy with what you have, ok?

Click to expand...

Let's try this. Do you agree with Great Bustard when he says?

“if the manner in which you'd use a larger sensor system is primarily to shoot the same DOF and shutter speed as a smaller sensor system, then you would most likely be better served with the smaller sensor system, since, at best, the larger sensor system would merely match its noise performance.”

This is the common ground we can meet at, rather than your continued personal attacks and avoiding of topics.

This is a simple "yes" or "no" question. "So?" is not an vaild answer.

Click to expand...

Excuse me, but you are the one who has been attacking me for so long. And when I start reacting to your behavior and call you out, you are trying to blame me? Look in the mirror, will ya?

And I have had many discussions with Joseph already - I agree with his points, and he does with mine.

But you conveniently left that part of his statement out of the quote, did you not?

As you did with my other part of the comment. So, guilty by omission here - at least you agree on that part about you too.

Come'on now, can't we all get along here? Start with yourself, will ya?

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

Lab D said:

blue_skies said:

blue_skies said:

The arguement is very simple. Pick the smallest (Which means most efficient) sensor that gives you the shallow DoF you need. If you always need razor thin DoF, then FF is for you. For me and most here, M43 is capable of very thin DoF and also the wider DoF needed far more often.

Click to expand...

So?

That is adding nothing to the debate. Be happy with what you have, ok?

Click to expand...

Let's try this. Do you agree with Great Bustard when he says?

“if the manner in which you'd use a larger sensor system is primarily to shoot the same DOF and shutter speed as a smaller sensor system, then you would most likely be better served with the smaller sensor system, since, at best, the larger sensor system would merely match its noise performance.”

This is the common ground we can meet at, rather than your continued personal attacks and avoiding of topics.

This is a simple "yes" or "no" question. "So?" is not an vaild answer.

Click to expand...

Excuse me, but you are the one who has been attacking me for so long. And when I start reacting to your behavior and call you out, you are trying to blame me? Look in the mirror, will ya?

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

And I have had many discussions with Joseph already - I agree with his points, and he does with mine.

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

But you conveniently left that part of his statement out of the quote, did you not?

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

blue_skies said:

In any event, if the manner in which you'd use a larger sensor system is primarily to shoot the same DOF and shutter speed as a smaller sensor system, then you would most likely be better served with the smaller sensor system, since, at best, the larger sensor system would merely match its noise performance. That said, performance in other areas, both in terms of IQ and operation, may still make one, or the other, system preferable to the other, even for equivalent photos.

Click to expand...

As you did with my other part of the comment. So, guilty by omission here - at least you agree on that part about you too.

Come'on now, can't we all get along here? Start with yourself, will ya?

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

--
Cheers,
Henry

Click to expand...

Anders W said:

Kim Letkeman said:

Anders W said:

Kim Letkeman said:

Anders W said:

brycesteiner said:

Anders W said:

Anders W said:

It's always something ...

DOF? Not much of an issue here ...

Click to expand...

I am not saying that I cannot think of a single scenario where FF wouldn't help me out better than my MFT gear. All I am saying is that these are sufficiently rare for me personally that it does not make sense for me to go FF (or even keep FF as a second system for special occasions).

As to the above image, it is one of many where DoF does not matter much because you are shooting a WA at sufficient distance for DoF not to be much of an issue. However, in my experience, many of these scenes are of such a kind that you don't really need high ISO in the first place. I don't know if you could bring some kind of support (not necessarily a full-blown tripod) with you into that museum, whether you found the shot sufficiently important to bother with it, and how you feel about the importance of having people in the scene. But it's certainly the kind of scene for which image stacking of one kind or another would have been an option, in which case we'd also have execellent rather than border-line signal-noise performance no matter whether it was done by an MFT or an FF camera.

Here's an example of a low-light (and high DR) scene where I used that technique.



I have shot the same scene without a tripod too, using the same lens (12/2) but wide open rather than stopped down to f/4, base ISO, and a shutter speed of about 0.5 s (with IBIS). That one looks pretty OK at smaller size but doesn't hold up so well at larger sizes after I have pushed the shadows to where I want them to be.

Click to expand...

Between these two pictures there really is no comparison. I do like your reasoning Anders on some of these. I think there is a time and place for both. The picture of the whale doesn't let anyone truly look at it since it is so small. Even at the 1:1 size of the cropped version you can see noise in the shadows. Honestly, I think a newer iPhone would take just as good of a shot.

The row houses picture is completely different. This would have to be taken with a tripod on any system to get this nice. Oh sure, I could bump up the ISO 5000 and maybe get it with a stabilized lens on the full frame, but it still will not look like this!

Click to expand...

I think we see eye to eye on all that.

Click to expand...

So Mr. Equivalence now thinks a newer iPhone is equivalent to a D700 when shot in a very dark room ...

Click to expand...

I have no idea of what Mr. Equivalence thinks about the matter. But, like Bryce, I think a newer iPhone would be able to take just as good a shot, probably better, provided that the photographer knows what he or she is doing of course. Seems like there is plenty of natural support so why stop at 1/50 s? And then there are of course apps like these to help you out:

http://connect.dpreview.com/post/2275642385/app-roundup-nighttime-mobile-photography

Anders W said:

Good to know ...

Click to expand...

Glad you think so. Always a pleasure to keep you informed about the options.

Click to expand...

Ok, so then you do believe that a newer iphone will match a D700 in such a circumstance.

Click to expand...

No. Read it again. What I said is that a competent photographer with a newer iphone could accomplish as good a photo as you managed with the D700.

Click to expand...

Anders W said:

Anders W said:

Perhaps you have stood right there and perhaps you have not.

Click to expand...

I haven't. But as I had hoped you would realize there is no need for that in order to make the kind of judgment I made.

Click to expand...

Anders W said:

Anders W said:

But I have and to me you fellas are simply taking advantage of how easy it is to make up silly stories like that as a deflection from the original discussion ...

Click to expand...

Why would anyone care how things appear to you?

Click to expand...

Anders W said:

What's of interest is what you can substantiate, isn't it?

Click to expand...

Anders W said:

Anders W said:

I also observe that your legendary superciliousness remains intact, which is also good to know.

Click to expand...

In that particular department I admit to being way behind you.

Click to expand...

Nothing Special

This blog is my personal space. Do not confuse this with statements or opinions on behalf of any employer I have ever had, have now, or will ever have in the future.

kimletkeman.blogspot.com