-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
When the M stops being cheap...
- Thread starter Swervin Mervin
- Start date
tedolf
Veteran Member
Last edited:
In other words you haven't got any...
I gave you the DXO link and until you can show something that proves otherwise, I will leave it at that.
tedolf
Veteran Member
I don't think anybody does, that is why I made the challenge. You just can't say unequivocally without that kind of data.
Again, as everybody knows, DXO data is not applicable across format types. DXO has said so themselves.
SLRGear has tested the M. Zuiko 9-18 and published lens charts for all apertures:
Loading…
slrgear.com
but as far as I know, the Canon EOS-m lens has not been tested by them.
So right now, we really can't say one way or the other.
I will leave it at that.
K
kodachromeguy
Guest
"M4/3 is already backed against the wall at 16MP". Where, how, in what way? Many M4/3 photographers are doing superb work and most certainly don't seem to be backed up to any wall with restriction imposed by the sensor.
Abu Mahendra
Veteran Member
The physics, man, the physics of it.
Unless you're shooting commercially, I just don't see any need for anything more than 16mp. I shoot weddings, and I shoot on Canon M-RAW because that's all I really need. I only switch to full RAW on my Canon DSLRs when I shoot the portraits and large group shots. And that's one reason why I won't buy Sony cameras: because I don't need huge 24mp RAW files! And Sony doesn't do M-RAW. There are more important factors to a sensor than just megapixels. That's one reason why I started using the Fuji X system: their 16mp X-Trans sensor puts out ridiculously good quality, and 16mp is plenty!
I also shoot m4/3, and I don't want or need m4/3 to go beyond its current megapixel count, either. It's just not needed by 98% of shooters. Don't be one of those fools who is chasing megapixels for megapixels, or is claiming that he needs to regularly crop down to 10% of his image frame!
Last edited:
SmoothGlass
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 1,277
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 782
Why do some people seem to think Fuji's 16MP X-trans is so good? They cheat by 0.5 to 1 stop compared to other cameras, which is a big part of why their high ISO stuff looks good, but it also doesn't capture as much detail. Look how the Fuji X-T1 gets it butt kicked by the latest Sony, Nikon, and Canon APS-C cameras (zoom in on the paintbrush handles on the upper left/lower right to see how much detail the Fuji lost). Even Oly's 16MP cameras are competitive at a smaller sensor size. And that's BEFORE accounting for Fuji's 1/2+ stop cheating on ISO.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x-t1/18
Also, hating on Sony sensors for megapixels is kinda weird. 24MP isn't that much more space/processing than 16; storage and PCs and flash memory are cheap these days. And Sony's lower-ISO dynamic range is definitely better than Canon's. Canon only catches up at higher ISOs. Which you shouldn't be shooting at if you can help it... a strong flash setup helps. Sony's flash system is not as good as Canon's but is still usable.
Last edited:
Abu Mahendra
Veteran Member
Abu Mahendra
Veteran Member
It's calles Sour Grapes. You know that it the shoe were on the other foot, they'd be hectoring us about the superiority of their sensor.
I shoot Canon 18 MP APS-C, but I do not malign Sony's 241717 exmors.
--
>> I love the Canon EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS STM lens! <<
I strongly suggest you own these cameras and live with them for a while before attempting to give a lecture on them, LOL. First hand experience is very valuable. I wasn't sure what to make of the X-Trans sensor before buying my X-E1, but I decided I wanted to try it for myself. So far, I'm loving it and am very impressed. Sure, you can pour over lab test shots all you want, but I think these cameras need to be used out in the real world. I have heard Zack Arias and other photographers speak so highly of the X-Trans sensor, and now I understand what they mean. Of course, I'm not sitting around shooting lab shots with all my cameras. But I can say that out in the real world, I feel that the X-Tran sensor does give me more pleasing results than my other cameras straight out of camera. All I can say is, try it for yourself. Otherwise, you're just another one of those despised armchair quarterbacks on the internet spouting about stuff you have no first-hand knowledge of.
BTW, I never said X-Trans was m4/3. I said that I started using Fuji X, but "I also shoot m4/3" (it's the one sitting between my X-E1 and my EOS M):
Unless you're printing larger than 20x24, you really don't need more than 16mp. To put things into perspective for you, Joe McNally shot the very first all-digital story for National Geographic using a 5.4mp Nikon D1X. Not only was the quality good enough for the high expectations of National Geographic, but Joe McNally made a series of gallery prints that he exhibited. And yes, they look gorgeous. And this is from a 5.4mp DSLR from back in 2002.
Here's an article about that particular story: http://www.robgalbraith.com/multi_page4907.html?cid=7-6450-6561-6566
Joe McNally with large format prints of photos he shot for the Geographic story:
I'm not arguing that we should all go back to shooting 5.4mp cameras. All I'm saying is that all this quibbling over megapixels, at this late stage of digital photography maturity where sensors deliver extraordinarily good IQ, is really more about people's own insecurities ("I just have to have more megapixels, because it makes me feel better!") than about true practical value.
I have to laugh when I hear of non-working weekend-warrior photographers belly-aching that a particular camera doesn't have enough megapixels for their "ultra-high standards". Hahaha. Get over it, people. There's more to photography than pixel peeping and chasing ever-more megapixels!
Last edited:
Abu Mahendra
Veteran Member
I do like to print big so 16MP pixels is barely adequate. I am quite happy with FF and APS-C, thanks. No desire to downsize and downgrade sensors, or to have to deal with X-Trans RAW de-mosaicing (I shoot 100% RAW) while paying premium prices for the camera and lenses. You will not see a single post by me on this forum bemoaning Canon sensor IQ, the M or wasting time on M3 (and 7D!) rumours. Not a single one. Quite content where I am, thanks.
--
>> I love the Canon EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS STM lens! <<
--
>> I love the Canon EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS STM lens! <<
Last edited:
keeponkeepingon
Veteran Member
Photography blog Olympus 9-18mm "Centre sharpness is best at f/4, i.e. wide open. Diffraction starts to limit performance at as low a value as f/5.6, which is no wonder given that the physical size of the aperture is already very small at that setting (9/5.6=1.6mm), although quality remains acceptable through f/8. You may argue that a 9mm lens doesn't ever need to be stopped down beyond that point anyway, but it isn't always true - when you include a foreground interest that's only a few inches away from the front lens element (as is often the case with an ultra-wide optic), you might find that some parts are out of focus due to depth of field still being insufficient. Have a look at image #7 on our Sample Images page for an example.
The extreme borders never get tack sharp - to minimise blurring at the edges, shoot for f/5.6, but don't expect miracles."
And the EoS-M
"Centre sharpness remains high through from f4 to f/16, with f/22 being adversely affected by diffraction. The edges are almost as sharp as the centre, with f/5.6 to f/11 producing the sharpest results."
It's pretty clear to me, I'd say tack sharp, which lens I rather own....
http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/canon_efm_11_22mm_f_4_56_is_stm_review/sharpness_1/
http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/olympus_m_zuiko_digital_ed_9_18mm_f_4_56_review/sharpness_1/
Last edited:
Abu Mahendra
Veteran Member
Does corner mush also come "free"?
SmoothGlass
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 1,277
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 782
Lol did I strike a nerve or something?
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x-t1/17
"Remember though that the X-T1 gains some advantage in this comparison by over-stating its ISOs compared to its peers, by around 0.5 EV."
"in effect there's some additional, non-optional noise reduction going on as part of the Raw conversion for the X-Trans sensor, which substantially eliminates chroma noise."
I've used a LOT of cameras from a LOT of systems, Canon, Sony, Nikon, Panny, Oly, etc. enough so that I am comfortable in saying that Fuji's system does not appear, to me, to merit the kind of praise it's gotten because it does not appear, to me, to be any higher resolving, nor do the X-Trans colors appear better--and color taste is subjective anyway. I'm not saying Fuji is bad or unusable or whatever, and I'm not even saying it's not better, but I AM saying it doesn't appear to live up to the hype.
About resolution. Some lenses perform better at longer distances than typical for lab tests, but DPR uses the as-tested sharpest lenses for each mount. So which is more probable: that every single X-mount lens sucks at lab tests and that's why even the sharpest X-mount lens does so badly on DPR's tests? Or that the X-trans sensor simply isn't good at resolving power as advertised? You could also say that DPR needed to rework the RAW files using some specific RAW converter and that's fine, but most people use Lightroom/Photoshop and it's a hassle to switch.
So there you have it. I've given objective evidence. You haven't.
As for your smug "I've used it so my opinion matters"I'm glad it works for you but so what? Have you ever considered that your experience with X-Trans could just be a placebo effect? I haven't personally used that scammy Iraqi bomb detector device, but based on evidence available online, I believe it doesn't work. Using your logic, I'm just an armchair critic blah blah blah and the people who HAVE used it and swear that it works, are correct. http://www.businessweek.com/article...g-device-that-didnt-work-except-to-make-money
And I HAVE played around with a Fuji before (briefly, camera wasn't mine), back when I sold off my Nikon DSLR gear for good and was looking for a replacement main camera. If X-Trans did have an advantage, it was too subtle to be a deciding factor for me. Deciding factors for me included Fuji's high price, low market share and thus questionable longevity of mount and worse third-party support for lenses/grips/etc., worse autofocus (especially AF-C), and bad HSS support.
Furthermore, you are merely human, at best. Humans are extremely susceptible to psychological errors like biases and placebo effects. Read Kahneman and Tversky, Ariely, and various other psychology and legal studies. http://www.caltech.edu/content/wine-study-shows-price-influences-perception (where people rate wines higher if they are told it's expensive; just as people might rate X-Trans output higher if they were led to believe it's superior) is just one of MANY examples. There are many instances where eye-witnesses got even basic stuff like color wrong. Read the literature, it's out there, and I gave you some starting points.
Similarly, I couldn't care less what celebrity photography X or Y says. They are human, too, and just because you're some hotshot doesn't mean you know how to objectively appraise equipment. Gary Fong just got his ass handed to him by the people at LuLa over aRGB. And even if you are a True Believer of celebrity words, so what, Steve Huff doesn't like X-Trans ("To me, the X-Trans lacks the “Organic” and I have tried and tried and tried to love them but unless you have perfect light, for me, they always fall flat in comparison to other cameras and sensors." at http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2013/09/19/the-new-fuji-x-a1-minus-x-trans-sensor-good-or-bad/ for example), does that mean any more than Zack Arias's opinion? No. Both of their opinions are not dispositive.
Summary: I'm happy you are happy with your Fuji but your huffing and puffing about your own personal experience is just laying your subjective opinion, and as I've linked to above, subjective opinion is susceptible to cognitive errors like confirmation bias, placebo effects, etc. In contrast to your personal subjective opinion, I linked to objective DPR image tests and find it implausible that every single Fuji lens sucks at lab tests. If you want to say DPR should have used another RAW converter fine but I hope you realize most people use Adobe products and don't want to change their workflow. And even if Fuji had some slight edge in image quality, from what I've seen personally and online in samples and comparisons, the edge is not enough for me to want to switch to Fuji given the other problems with X-mount including lack of HSS, which is a dealbreaker to me.
Last edited:
SmoothGlass
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 1,277
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 782
photog7320
Veteran Member
The Canon 11-22mm is sharp into the corners wide open. The Oly 9-18mm is not.
Who buys an UWA lens to crop sweeping landscapes to 8x10"??? For landscapes you make use of the full 2:3 ratio of APS-C and 35mm sensors.
It is a great deal.
It's wider, I'll give it that. It's also more then twice the price for essentially the same IQ.
DXOmark Sharpness ALL DATA at a glance.
.
.
$850 (eBay)
Left ( RED ) is BAD. Right ( Green ) is GOOD.
.
$600 (eBay)
Left ( RED ) is BAD. Right ( Green ) is GOOD.
.
$385 (eBay)
Left ( RED ) is BAD. Right ( Green ) is GOOD.
Which one is better ?
tedolf
Veteran Member
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum