Why would I need to do that? I use the strengths of the camera to confirm focusing before I take my shots. I also have the option of checking straight away if I missed anyway, which is possible with any camera. I'm know the E-M1 is faster to focus, but it's not a full frame camera and it's not what I want to use so what's your point? As for the D750 I wouldn't know, it's not a camera that will ever interest me, it's a DSLR, enjoy carrying and manual focusing with that behemoth is all I can say to that. No camera is perfect to focus in any light, none, having used film cameras and microprism focusing screens I can say that modern mirrorless cameras are a pleasure to use and focus. Focus peaking and magnified live view make it virtually foolproof, no need to adjust for different lenses and all that hassle, I'm not sure what the problem even is.
I somewhat agree with you though my experience is with the A7ii. The reason to go with Sony is if interested in FF (which trumps m43 with respect to high ISO and DR potential) and one likes the Sony UI/form factor. The big red flag for the Sony FF system has been the low light AF, a non-starter issue if a good light shooter or using primarily MF lenses. Battery drain? Just own extra batteries (like I did when owning the A7ii).
The image above proves my point. Colour, video and resolution have nothing to do with f-stop differences in noise. Resolution wise, true resolution, the Sony 24mp sensor may have a real 30% advantage on the m4/3rds provided you use a lens comparable to the current Olympus Pro (or older Olympus HG and SHG) lenses. If you are concerned about resolution across the frame and sharpness (as distinct from resolution since they are not the same) and you want the edges to be nearly as good as the centre, with 35mm sensors this becomes a much harder proposition.Noise + color fidelity + video + resolution is more than a stop. I can't compare an m43 to 1" without batting an eye. Neither can touch a modern FF sensor unless you are just looking for low ISO or autofocus performance.It's less than a stop. If noise is the issue, an "S" would be better.
Well you can always downrezz a higher resolution image to improve it even more, or make the noise less noticeable. As it happens there is much less noise at low ISO's and when post processing as well. Colour fidelity and tonal range are also much better maintained at higher ISO's on a full frame sensor, as you'd expect them to be, it isn't purely about the noise itself.The image above proves my point. Colour, video and resolution have nothing to do with f-stop differences in noise.Noise + color fidelity + video + resolution is more than a stop. I can't compare an m43 to 1" without batting an eye. Neither can touch a modern FF sensor unless you are just looking for low ISO or autofocus performance.It's less than a stop. If noise is the issue, an "S" would be better.
Not really, I have 40 year old lenses that will do that pretty easily. Here's where you really see a difference.
Possibly, but downrezzing cures that, if you need to.
Wide open I'd agree, no full frame lens is sharp across the frame wide open. However, I have an old OM 50mm F1.4 which sharpens up very quickly. That being said, being sharp across the frame wide open isn't a particularly sought after trait on a fast full frame prime. The dof is so shallow anyway it's not really an issue, at least to many.
True enough though I've seen diffraction showing on m4/3's lenses below F9, it just depends on the lens to be honest. Deeper dof often offsets the effects of diffraction anyway, depending on what you're shooting. Either way, on both formats, some you win, some you lose, you just pick your preference, I use both for different reasons, both are great.
I'm curious to know why you're disappointed with the Sony, only because I've had such a different experience also coming from the EM1 (which by the way I'm going to keep, and indeed am looking forward to the 4.0 firmware upgrade).
A 16MP M43 sensor acts like the center of a 64MP full frame sensor. Put the same 300mm lens on both cameras and the M43 sensor will out resolve the FF for objects in the distance. Similar is true with the same macro and tiny details since there is limit to how close one can get. If one can get close enough to put a subject in the whole frame, the the A7Rii EASILY out resolves the 16MP M43 sensor. For most photography this is the case, but not always.
I've never seen anyone say 'large' before. There was a little difference when Sony briefly went from the 16MP to 20 MP sensor, but not large.
True and how often outside of a zoo can people do (for example) wildlife photos without having to crop empty frame away? But then you can counter and say, if you have the money, Sony has 500mm lens for their 35mm-sensored cameras which will give the frame-filling capacity of a 16mp m4/3rds with a 250mm focal length and you'll have 42mp on the subject. The "equivalency" thing goes out the window if Sony exceeds m4/3rds resolution by virtue of having longer lenses.
OR better yet stick to your Celllphone instead..done.
Wow, that hit a nerve. Methinks you over reacted.OR better yet stick to your Celllphone instead..done.
I love being able to just keep adding to my ignore list people with such comments.
Yeah like lets forget DR, MUCH superior ISO performance and so on....but the way I see it, if you own a camera and somehow IQ is the least important thing for you about it...then why not just go back to your phone...?
I think too much people here believe they can just spend the money on higher end gear and somehow the camera will magically make them better photographers then blame the gear when it does not happen.
That is not how it works...you got a MUCH more powerful piece of gear but dont expect it to do it all for you
Wow, that hit a nerve. Methinks you over reacted.OR better yet stick to your Celllphone instead..done.
I love being able to just keep adding to my ignore list people with such comments.
Yeah like lets forget DR, MUCH superior ISO performance and so on....but the way I see it, if you own a camera and somehow IQ is the least important thing for you about it...then why not just go back to your phone...?
I think too much people here believe they can just spend the money on higher end gear and somehow the camera will magically make them better photographers then blame the gear when it does not happen.
That is not how it works...you got a MUCH more powerful piece of gear but dont expect it to do it all for you
Going to a camera with better DR or noise control (even a modest 1 stop improvement) might give the average shooter a small improvement in what they produce. If it's worth the extra money or if it gives them a psychological "boost" at least they get something out of it.Wow, that hit a nerve. Methinks you over reacted.OR better yet stick to your Celllphone instead..done.
I love being able to just keep adding to my ignore list people with such comments.
Yeah like lets forget DR, MUCH superior ISO performance and so on....but the way I see it, if you own a camera and somehow IQ is the least important thing for you about it...then why not just go back to your phone...?
I think too much people here believe they can just spend the money on higher end gear and somehow the camera will magically make them better photographers then blame the gear when it does not happen.
That is not how it works...you got a MUCH more powerful piece of gear but dont expect it to do it all for you
Practicing technology agnostic here, and I think a stop is a lot of difference in and around the home. The RX1 gave me pictures I just could not take without a manual lens in m43 or camera phones. The A7S gives me video much the same. The gear can and does make a difference at the margins, where a lot of noobs shoot.Going to a camera with better DR or noise control (even a modest 1 stop improvement) might give the average shooter a small improvement in what they produce. If it's worth the extra money or if it gives them a psychological "boost" at least they get something out of it.Wow, that hit a nerve. Methinks you over reacted.OR better yet stick to your Celllphone instead..done.
I love being able to just keep adding to my ignore list people with such comments.
Yeah like lets forget DR, MUCH superior ISO performance and so on....but the way I see it, if you own a camera and somehow IQ is the least important thing for you about it...then why not just go back to your phone...?
I think too much people here believe they can just spend the money on higher end gear and somehow the camera will magically make them better photographers then blame the gear when it does not happen.
That is not how it works...you got a MUCH more powerful piece of gear but dont expect it to do it all for you
More like, it's at the margins because they don't know how to use their cameras as well as they could.Practicing technology agnostic here, and I think a stop is a lot of difference in and around the home. The RX1 gave me pictures I just could not take without a manual lens in m43 or camera phones. The A7S gives me video much the same. The gear can and does make a difference at the margins, where a lot of noobs shoot.Going to a camera with better DR or noise control (even a modest 1 stop improvement) might give the average shooter a small improvement in what they produce. If it's worth the extra money or if it gives them a psychological "boost" at least they get something out of it.Wow, that hit a nerve. Methinks you over reacted.OR better yet stick to your Celllphone instead..done.
I love being able to just keep adding to my ignore list people with such comments.
Yeah like lets forget DR, MUCH superior ISO performance and so on....but the way I see it, if you own a camera and somehow IQ is the least important thing for you about it...then why not just go back to your phone...?
I think too much people here believe they can just spend the money on higher end gear and somehow the camera will magically make them better photographers then blame the gear when it does not happen.
That is not how it works...you got a MUCH more powerful piece of gear but dont expect it to do it all for you
I think that much of what constitutes a better image is intangible, because actual studio tests and measurements don't point out a huge difference between the cameras. It's like when people used to use different film sizes. It was hard to put your finger on just why the images from larger film looked better, they just did. Case in point, I once saw two images, one taken with a 4x5 camera another with an 8x10. Blown up to 16x20. The 8x10 image looked better, but it really shouldn't have if you went by things like resolution and DR.
Not for me, as a long time 4/3's and m4/3's shooter I can clearly see the increased colour and tonality from a full frame sensor, the pictures have more depth to them. Now to some this won't matter but to me it's something I enjoy seeing and it's hard to give up. That doesn't make smaller sensors bad, they're very capable, it's just personal choice based on what I see. I gave up the Canon 5D2 because it was too bulky and heavy, the A7 is a bit smaller and lighter than the E-M1 so it works for me a lot better. Carrying the A7 and a few lenses is no chore, as long as you keep them at shorter focal lengths (which I do) and I get all the benefits of a FF sensor. There are times when an m4/3's sensor can win in certain scenario's, but they are not that often for me and what I shoot. That's how it's panned out for me anyway, I'm sure I'm not alone in that view. M4/3's is great for telephoto stuff in a lightweight package, nearly everything else is a win for FF for me.
That's the APS-C m43 argument. Only about 2/3rds of a stop difference in theory and in some cases less than 1/3rd of a stop in real life. Hardly a worthwhile difference. But lenses or 5 axis IS, or handling or 4K video, or simply size or price, are easily better reasons. Even feature set or higher FPS would be a better reason for some.
I've seen micro four thirds beat too many FF cameras in challenges and micro four thirds cameras named camera of the year over larger systems by every site from DPReview to professional photographers with blogs. Each systems has its advantage. The Nikon one is the top dog for focusing with DSLRs lenses, and Medium format still has better IQ and easier subject isolation than FF.
