Real world landscape examples of the detail in M43 vs fullframe?

neil holmes · Oct 30, 2015

Steve2015 said:
neil holmes said:

Doesn't that Pentax have the same party trick for even greater "size"? or is that a different medium format digital camera?

Click to expand...

To get higher res than the M5 II you need to look at around 60mp from the Raw file.

Which can be done with any camera if you really want to.

It is combining shots from a smaller MP sensor.......just doing it in camera.

Even 36mp is a bit much for my needs .....my current used cameras are 12mp, 16mp and 24mp and each has its uses.

There is NOTHING I would take currently over my 12mp A7s for low light/high ISO.

The 16mp GX7 is what it is....nice enough sensor but nothing special.

For resolution, the 24mp A7 does give a noticeable difference to me over the GX7.....using a similar lens.....I just stuck the GX7 with a kit lens and the A7 with a kit lens out my back window (a boring car park)......and the difference is very noticeable .....I wont post them as there are too many variables ....different aspect ratios, the A7 uses ISO 100 while the GX7 is limited to ISO 200 (there is a 125 extended setting....extended ISO 50 for the A7), different DOF.

Using the A7 kit lens at 28mm and f8 is far better than the GX7 with my Oly 14-42 ii kit lens at 14mm and f4......the A7 still using ISO 100 while the GX7 is at ISO 200.

I do think my 28-70 FE kit lens is the best kit lens I have used and the Oly ii, while I like it and it is a nice tiny lens, is not quite as good.

A 36mp or higher res FF camera would be even more noticeable still and if I stuck my best wide angle lenses (Canon 17 f4 L TS-E and 24 3.5 II L TS-E) on a higher res FF camera the difference would be greater still.

M4/3 CAN give very good results, for the OP, FF would be better I think but you need to spend a lot more money for better stuff. I am sure there are many here who would do better with a landscape and their M4/3 gear than I could with my FF gear but I don't do landscapes a real lot and am mostly a Jpeg shooter.

Steve2015 · Oct 30, 2015

trotteritco said:
full frame vs crop.. I always remember this video from Zack Arias..

The man speaks the truth.
5 years ago the difference between m4/3 and FF was substantial, today that difference has dwindled away, the diff is not as huge as some make it out to be. Not only have the cameras gotten better, but so have the lenses.

daddyo · Oct 30, 2015

Thanks for posting this. I've seen it before, but it's been a while. It hits the nail on the proverbial head.

papillon_65 · Oct 30, 2015

Steve2015 said:
trotteritco said:

full frame vs crop.. I always remember this video from Zack Arias..

Click to expand...

The man speaks the truth.
5 years ago the difference between m4/3 and FF was substantial, today that difference has dwindled away, the diff is not as huge as some make it out to be. Not only have the cameras gotten better, but so have the lenses.

Not really, any improvements in one format always translate to others, there will always roughly be a two stop difference, just simple physics.

whumber · Oct 30, 2015

daddyo said:
The High Resolution function of the E-M5 mkll is a legitimate increase in resolution, captured in camera. The only way for any camera not using this process to produce increased resolution OOC is to shoot panos, or stitched images -- which is a completely diffferent process.

I think Steve makes some valid points in that a comparison of images shot with the D810 and the E-M5 mkll High Res function indicate to me that the E-M5 mkll is capable of better resolution OOC. If you think this isn't true, simply look up the review of the E-M5 mkll here on DPR, click on the High Resolution Studio Scene Comparison and it brings up the comparison with the E810.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympus-om-d-e-m5-ii/9

It is pretty easy to see that the Olympus simply out-resolves the Nikon up to and including ISO 1600 -- above that, the D810 clearly wins as the Oly function is limit to ISO 1600.

The only drawbacks to the Oly High Res Function are the shutter speeds available for the process, and the high ISO limitations -- hopefully Olympus is working to improve those for the upcoming E-M1 mkll model.

MidasKiss · Oct 30, 2015

trotteritco said:
full frame vs crop.. I always remember this video from Zack Arias..

This video is great. Really puts things in perspective. Now I know I HAVE to go and buy an 8x10...

Just kidding

Steve2015 · Oct 30, 2015

papillon_65 said:
...there will always roughly be a two stop difference, just simple physics.

Not regarding IQ, that myth has been debunked.

papillon_65 · Oct 30, 2015

daddyo said:
The High Resolution function of the E-M5 mkll is a legitimate increase in resolution, captured in camera. The only way for any camera not using this process to produce increased resolution OOC is to shoot panos, or stitched images -- which is a completely diffferent process.

I think Steve makes some valid points in that a comparison of images shot with the D810 and the E-M5 mkll High Res function indicate to me that the E-M5 mkll is capable of better resolution OOC. If you think this isn't true, simply look up the review of the E-M5 mkll here on DPR, click on the High Resolution Studio Scene Comparison and it brings up the comparison with the E810.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympus-om-d-e-m5-ii/9

It is pretty easy to see that the Olympus simply out-resolves the Nikon up to and including ISO 1600 -- above that, the D810 clearly wins as the Oly function is limit to ISO 1600.

The only drawbacks to the Oly High Res Function are the shutter speeds available for the process, and the high ISO limitations -- hopefully Olympus is working to improve those for the upcoming E-M1 mkll model.

Paul Amyes · Oct 30, 2015

I shoot m4/3, APSc, 35mm sensor digitally and medium and large format film. With regard to the question can m4/3 resolve the detail that 35mm sensor can well that depends largely on the skills of the photographer. If you have the technique both at the taking stage and the processing stage that wring every bit of information out of the file then you will have more detail than someone who has sloppy technique using so called full frame. But, and here's the rub, if you put that effort into using the larger format then you will have again more detail. Then if you put that same dedication into using medium format you will get even better resolution.

The weak link is always the photographer. Yes camera x maybe better than camera y on paper, but if the photographer doesn't have the skills then that is theoretical.

If your sole motivation is to have the highest resolving sensor then you're going to eternally disappointed with your camera and always wanting the latest and greatest. Learn the art and craft of photography and use it to photograph your passions and you have the basis for a lifelong fulfilling hobby or interest. The equipment comes and goes.

papillon_65 · Oct 30, 2015

Steve2015 said:
papillon_65 said:

...there will always roughly be a two stop difference, just simple physics.

Click to expand...

Not regarding IQ, that myth has been debunked.

Maybe Sony never got the memo.

--
667......neighbour of the beast...

http://bit.ly/1K1oqkv

Steve2015 · Oct 30, 2015

papillon_65 said:
Maybe Sony never got the memo.

I don't think you got the memo.
I'd like to see the graph for the EM5 II HR mode, seems pretty convenient to compare a newly released sensor to a 2 yr old sensor. Flawed!

papillon_65 · Oct 30, 2015

Steve2015 said:
papillon_65 said:

Maybe Sony never got the memo.

Click to expand...

I don't think you got the memo.
I'd like to see the graph for the EM5 II HR mode, seems pretty convenient to compare a newly released sensor to a 2 yr old sensor. Flawed!

Spare me the EM5II nonsense, pick any m4/3's camera you like and do the comparison with the A7RII.

Steve2015 · Oct 30, 2015

papillon_65 said:
Spare me the EM5II nonsense, pick any m4/3's camera you like and do the comparison with the A7RII.

Are you thick? All along it was the EM5 II that was being referenced.
I don't think I want to converse with you anymore.

Martin.au · Oct 30, 2015

papillon_65 said:
Steve2015 said:

papillon_65 said:

Maybe Sony never got the memo.

Click to expand...

I don't think you got the memo.
I'd like to see the graph for the EM5 II HR mode, seems pretty convenient to compare a newly released sensor to a 2 yr old sensor. Flawed!

Click to expand...

Spare me the EM5II nonsense, pick any m4/3's camera you like and do the comparison with the A7RII.

.--
667......neighbour of the beast...
http://bit.ly/1K1oqkv

It's two stops, assuming similar sensor tech. Normally this goes the other way around, with FF not often achieving the full two stops advantage. The Sony has new tech.

papillon_65 · Oct 30, 2015

Steve2015 said:
papillon_65 said:

Spare me the EM5II nonsense, pick any m4/3's camera you like and do the comparison with the A7RII.

Click to expand...

Are you thick? All along it was the EM5 II that was being referenced.

The results are exactly the same and being insulting doesn't stop you from being wrong.

Steve2015 said:
I don't think I want to converse with you anymore.

Who knew....

papillon_65 · Oct 30, 2015

Martin.au said:
papillon_65 said:

Steve2015 said:

papillon_65 said:

Maybe Sony never got the memo.

Click to expand...

I don't think you got the memo.
I'd like to see the graph for the EM5 II HR mode, seems pretty convenient to compare a newly released sensor to a 2 yr old sensor. Flawed!

Click to expand...

Spare me the EM5II nonsense, pick any m4/3's camera you like and do the comparison with the A7RII.

.--
667......neighbour of the beast...
http://bit.ly/1K1oqkv

Click to expand...

It's two stops, assuming similar sensor tech.

That's pretty much what I said.

Martin.au said:
Normally this goes the other way around, with FF not often achieving the full two stops advantage.

Well that depends on a number of specific scenarios.

Martin.au said:
The Sony has new tech.

Compare it to the newest m4/3's cameras, it's still around 2 stops, the GX8 isn't really any better.

MidasKiss · Oct 30, 2015

Paul Amyes said:
I shoot m4/3, APSc, 35mm sensor digitally and medium and large format film. With regard to the question can m4/3 resolve the detail that 35mm sensor can well that depends largely on the skills of the photographer. If you have the technique both at the taking stage and the processing stage that wring every bit of information out of the file then you will have more detail than someone who has sloppy technique using so called full frame. But, and here's the rub, if you put that effort into using the larger format then you will have again more detail. Then if you put that same dedication into using medium format you will get even better resolution.

The weak link is always the photographer. Yes camera x maybe better than camera y on paper, but if the photographer doesn't have the skills then that is theoretical.

If your sole motivation is to have the highest resolving sensor then you're going to eternally disappointed with your camera and always wanting the latest and greatest. Learn the art and craft of photography and use it to photograph your passions and you have the basis for a lifelong fulfilling hobby or interest. The equipment comes and goes.

--
www.paulamyes.com
http://www.redbubble.com/people/amyesphotograph

Thanks Paul.

To me the question isn't "Will I have the most detail?", but more "Will I be happy with the level of detail that I could get".

I know pixel peeping has become a taboo and is generally used as an insult. For people whose output is print, which I assume is most people coming from the film era, pixel peeping represents nothing for the end result. However, for myself the output has generally been digital and the pictures of mine that I enjoy have been those with both content and detail. For many of my old photos I wish both that I could go back and recompose them with everything I've learnt, but also that I could go back and use better technique, but also better equipment to get a nicer image.

I'll try give two examples of my early photography from the beginning of last year, I've learnt a lot since.

Here, although I could have used better technique and equipment, I think the image still worked out ok and I have no desire to change things.

Here, this is the example of an image I just like to dive into on my computer. I wish I had composed it better, and I wish firstly that my technique was better, and secondly that my equipment had been better to achieve more detail so that I can dive in further.

I think ultimately, I'm going to get a M43 camera and work on my technique. Even the used prices for Sony gear are high here in Australia, and with our smaller population and large country size there isn't as much used gear as people might be used to overseas. For the A7II and the Zeiss 55mm F1.8 the cheapest (on sale) price is still around $2700, which is around $1200 more than an EM1+12-40 pro kit, which is a lot of money that could be put towards the olympus 75, 45, 60mm macro etc.

Steve2015 · Oct 30, 2015

Martin.au said:
It's two stops, assuming similar sensor tech.

That's great, you're talking about exposure.
The convo circled around resolution, and how a m4/3 sensor has more res than any ff currently available. The convo also circled around how a certain lens or two on an EM5 II can edge out a D810 in sharpness, yet there are those who keep on harping on about FF being two stops better.

Martin.au · Oct 30, 2015

Steve2015 said:
Martin.au said:

It's two stops, assuming similar sensor tech.

Click to expand...

That's great, you're talking about exposure.
The convo circled around resolution, and how a m4/3 sensor has more res than any ff currently available. The convo also circled around how a certain lens or two on an EM5 II can edge out a D810 in sharpness, yet there are those who keep on harping on about FF being two stops better.

Cheers.

My comment was directed solely at the comment from Papillon, with the SNR graph.

Steve2015 · Oct 30, 2015

Martin.au said:
My comment was directed solely at the comment from Papillon, with the SNR graph.

I can understand. He didn't like it that I as making valid points, so he went off on a tangent.

Real world landscape examples of the detail in M43 vs fullframe?

neil holmes

Guest

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts