E-M5 II HR mode that is combination of 8 frames,
Can one get the same result from two (higher MP count) hand-held FF frames? - just think about it.
Sure, you can do that with any camera. The argument was for the given example posted there. Not that what you can do to alter situation for 35mm benefit, while not adjusting anything for m4/3 benefit. It isn't that 35mm camera allows to do tricks but those tricks are not allowed to be used with m4/3 camera. As that isn't fair comparison then. The comparison was given to show that with same settings, m4/3 so called "disadvantage" is really a advantage. Then someone comes and claims that "This isn't an illustration of a limitation of FF cameras." and "The MFT, OTOH is not capable of producing the same shot as the FF.". It was not stated what camera, in where. In image editing we can do lots of things, regardless of the camera. It is that what levels the playfield. Rendering benefits of 35mm camera most often non-existing and usually negligent.
A Live Composite that you can leave taking photos for hours, resulting far more accurate colors and brightness with far far lower noise than FF on same time....
After you stack them up and blend in post-processing ..
That can be done with any camera... That is the point what some people just doesn't seem to get. It doesn't go just like that you take 35mm camera and say "Oh, but I can do these tricks, but oh no, you are not allowed to do same!"
FF is very limited camera format, people just don't like to admit it.
It is used nevertheless ..
I didn't say it isn't used. It is known fact that 135 format is used a lot. The arguments these days are that DSLR is dying, technology has improved a lot resulting big changes in smaller cameras, that leads to possibility to use smaller cameras to get photographs that meet the requirement. Some pixel peepers doesn't like the idea, many 35mm fan doesn't like the idea. And what is that idea? That they need to abandon their believes and look alternatives in different ways. As in last 3-5 years digital cameras technology has changed more than most photographers really have noticed.
Photographers are not ultimate judges that command how technology needs to be developed. It happens with or without photographers. The end user, the audience, the people who look photographs in their final print size from the usable medium will rule what is acceptable image quality. If here would come a engineer that designs a digital camera sensors and would say that Sony sensor pixels used in A7s are inferior to Panasonic sensor pixels used in GH4, it would not change photographers opinion that 35mm is better.
Take the photo from GH4 and from A7s in most common situations and edit both in image editor and then go to street with iPad and present them to random people and tell them to point which one they like more. It is far far far more difficult and actually random made decision than if you would show them two photos where other is a half-naked beautiful 18v girl and in other is 80 years old cranky woman. And then if you ask them why they chose as they did, you see that it is hard time to them really tell the reasons between GH4 and A7s photos.
And they are the ultimate judges...
Just like with those two samples from the simple flowers and pineapple. Download those to iPad, go to street and ask from people which one is better. There is even bigger difference is the iPad first generation (2010) or from latest retina iPad, than the photos itself. With retina iPad if you let the people exam them closer (without zooming even) they probably would find out that the photo from m4/3 camera is sharper, because it is in focus. Same settings (ISO, Aperture and Shutter speed).
The m4/3 cameras has gained popularity, they are used more and more, nevertheless.
And they produce photos that everyone would keep excellent, if they would not just know that it is not taken with 35mm sensor camera, as otherwise there comes the words again: "The MFT, OTOH is not capable of producing the same shot as the FF."
It is like this scenario. I write this from a 7" tablet, I am currently standing next to my camera that is doing long exposure.
It would have been much nicer to write this in front of my computer with ergonomic keyboard, calibrated 4K displays and yadda yadda yadda...
But why I would write something from 7" device that doesn't have a physical keyboard? Thats screen isn't even 4K!
Because it is with me. Because it is light, small and fits to any pocket. It has battery lifetime for few days in normal use (I can watch couple TV shows every day and browse web a one hour for over weekend and still have battery left to check emails). It is sharp enough to browse photos and view them. It is great tool to do minor adjustments before sending them.
It does everything I need (and more) and is suited to work far better than any laptop or workstation is, because those are big. I don't have in this a 8 core CPU with a 32GB RAM. I can't really do CAD work or anykind designs for electronics. And yet I use this device far more than I use any other computer. Why? because it is small and light, and it gives results that are far better than I can get from any other computer.
Does it make this 7" device technically better than any other my computers? No.... not even close. But if I can get most tasks done with same results, it doesn't matter.
Should I carry 35mm camera only because it is technically better? No, heavy, large and results are better negligently.
It would be like carrying a 12" laptop instead 7" tablet.
If I get 99% same results from m4/3 camera than from otherone using 35mm camera, I don't care that it isn't technically better.
If I can climb with lighter setup, I can move faster, I can get to positions where I could not get with 35mm camera, I am getting photographs that would otherwise left from being taken.
And now there is a new m4/3 camera that can do amazing things in studio and even for landscapes. It has own limits, but still when needed and possible use, it will gives amazing results.
And when the final judgement comes from the people who see photos in front page of Time, National Geographic etc. No one, no one thinks "I should have that camera as it takes so great photos!".
The point still stands, 35mm format is limited camera that future is cursed by its own fans, as they won't learn to think differently.
