Sensor size differences even out when it comes to IQ. Why?

Started Mar 10, 2014 | Discussions thread
Ttriple Forum Member • Posts: 55
Re: Your standards...

texinwien wrote:

Ttriple wrote:

Dave Sanders wrote:

Ttriple wrote:

No offense to Jose, but that is far from his best work. I've seen his posts in various forums for going on 10 years now...those are models in awkward poses with barely passable lighting. Most of it, ironically enough, fits the actual definition of 'flat' lighting. So, not overly impressive or indicative of anything resembling what you profess to see. I suggest training your eye a bit and exposing yourself to more quality photographers by buying their books or visiting their websites. Perhaps less time worrying about your gear and more time learning about photography as an art and a craft?

Besides it is and always has been about the photographer, not his equipment. Here are some quality examples of what good colour, lighting and posing looks like...

And most of Giulio's work is with Olympus and Panasonic m4/3 gear:

-- hide signature --

Dave Sanders

Sorry but I would have to disagree with you on both counts. While my eyes are not those of a pro, but they can surely tell in general the slight advantage IQ of a larger sensor to that of a smaller one

I sincerely doubt your eyes would be able to tell, in general, any advantage in IQ in a blind test comparing the latest micro four-thirds and APS-C sensors.

(back up by DoXmark tests).

Which tests would those be? How about sharing the ones that back up your assertion?

Secondly, your links to those two pro-shooters, while impressive, are heavily post-processed. I have no doubt that they would get even better results from a larger format sensors.

The original set of images you linked to (of the dog) in support of your contention that APS-C sensors deliver better IQ are also heavily post-processed, and I quote:

As you can see in most of my pics, I push and pull them.

And yet, apparently, your untrained eye didn't recognize this obvious fact.

Physics is physics and the earth is stills round.

For centuries, those who trusted what their senses told them argued that the earth was flat. It took measurements and logic-based arguments against the dogma (such as yours) to finally convince most of the fact that the earth is, indeed, round.

Relying on what your senses tell you puts you at a distinct danger of suffering from confirmation bias, and your eyes certainly don't seem to be those of a well-trained expert, since you don't seem to be able to provide any convincing sample images that support your ill-informed opinions.

I think you failed you understand that when I said I rely on my eyes and what they see regarding results produced by m4/3 sensors in comparison to others I also look at test samples from this site and elsewhere, But if you are more interested in quantifiable proofs:

I made a decision to not invest in the smaller m4/3 format and I have no regret. I like the results I got from my APS-C cameras and I hope you like yours too whatever it is that you are shooting with. Isn't that what matters when the noises settled? Good day!

 Ttriple's gear list:Ttriple's gear list
Sigma DP1s Sony RX100 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sony E 35mm F1.8 OSS
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow