Only if light conditions do Not Allowe for capture of Same amount of light.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Is M4/3 bettwer IQ than some FF images?
- Thread starter karlreed
- Start date
All things being equal, a full frame sensor will give better IQ than a m43 sensor. Light is variable, but sensor performance is consistent.
Moti
Veteran Member
The main mistake that most of you guys are doing, is that you base your debates on futures and charts only, and you are completely disconnected from real world photography consideration.
So theoretically you maybe right but in the real world, where IQ, FOV, noise, DOF and motion blur are the main actors and depending on what you shoot, should the right compromis between those should be found, you may find out that FF doesn't always have an advantage. So arguing on this topic without considering real world situations, is a nonsense.
Moti
--
http://www.musicalpix.com
Last edited:
JudyN
Veteran Member
I'm a little confused about this remark. Why do "fine art photos" need FF? Not all fine art is about detail. Traditional landscape is, and night sky shots, but certainly not everything. Even landscapes I often tone down the detail. What I "saw" was not the leaves on the trees but the ambiance, which is what I'm trying to represent in my photographs.
I think it depends on the TYPE of photography you do, the results you want. Sharpness and detail have never been that important to me, but I can understand that it is for some people. Actually, of what I do, I think birds are the most important for detail and sharpness... And there the size of the equipment needed is more and more moving people toward smaller sensors, especially with cameras like the EM-1 II now available.
Clayton1985
Veteran Member
You are simply wrong. Maybe you're under complicating this... I think you are confusing sensors for cameras. In addition to the sensor - IBIS, AF, desired DoF, lens, and what your IQ priorities are all play a role in what you are calling "better IQ". There are absolutely situations with your example setups where the m4/3 camera and lens will deliver the same or even better IQ than FF.
So, for example, if I have the Sony A7II with the 24-70 f4 and I'm taking a handheld image of the interior of a church where f8 is needed for enough DoF and with Sony IBIS I can shoot at a shutter speed of 1/30 resulting in ISO1600. I use the E-M1 II with the 12-40 f2.8 and I would use f4 for equivalent DoF and with the superior IBIS I am able to use a shutter speed of 1/15 resulting in ISO200. Am I to understand that the FF will deliver better IQ? because that is what you are saying.
JudyN
Veteran Member
That's you... Some of us do not want FF or need FF, for any number of reasons. I looked very seriously at Sony FF, since they were NOT producing anything I wanted in APS-C. I like Sony cameras and until the EM-1 II, a Sony A77 was my primary camera (although less used than the EM-5 in recent times). I talked to owners of Sony FF. I read the manuals and reviews. I bought an EM-1 II instead. I sold my Sony birding lens to someone strong enough to hold it and who loves tripods.
I for one am sick of the mantra FF for everyone.
I am EXTREMELY happy with my EM-1 II. And if I had not been, I could have sent it back, but I did not. I am not justifying the cost -- I don't care that much about that. I want a camera that fits me and what I do and how I like to do it. That's all that matters. Not what people say is "best" for this or that or something else.
Moti
Veteran Member
All this is theoretical again because things may change a lot in different Shooting situations. I'll give you a real world example from my own experience
Im a pro concert photographer, which means that low light is my daily bread. When I am shooting an orchestra on stage, I need a wide DOF to have a veryone in focuse, I need a minimum shutter speed to avoid motion blur.
I'm now using m4/3 gear and In an average concert hall, from the place I shoot, i can get my desired DOF at f/2.8, and iso1600 will give me a shutter speed of about 1/120, the majority nimum to avoid motion blur.
In the past, when I was shooting FF dslr, I needed f/5.6 to get the same DOF but then, in order to maintain the same shutter speed, I had to bump the ISO to 6400, and here is how the low light FF advantage is blown out of the window. So if I add to it the other advantages of an m4/3 gear, it was more suitable for what I do than FF gear.
This is what I meant when I said that without analysing specific real world situation, any debate is pointless b cause sometimes FF has an abvantand and sometimes not,
Moti
--
http://www.musicalpix.com
Last edited:
T
Tommi K1
Guest
But the end result is inconsistent depending the size, photo content and medium.
That is why a FF doesn't deliver always the better quality.
If you can only drive 120km/h, it doesn't help your car max speed is 320 compared to other that is 280. You don't benefit from the extra speed.
knickerhawk
Veteran Member
I am not sure if you can archive this regardless how much you try.
Some time a go I witch to the GX80. I was sure it would replace the M10 100%.
But as I started to take IR photos i realized that the WB did not reach down to 2000Kelvin as the M10 used to.
This was frustration a I ended up having some orange paper to tweek the WB.
Problem solved but more complicated as before.
(At the End I sold the Gx80 due to the bad EVF I never got used to.)
So if you must take a decision you can always miss something you even may not have noticed today.
This may absolute be true. the RAW converter fore the EM1.2 will mature. But it is also true that you can not count on it for the explicit picture you have tried nowadays.
Martin
T
Tommi K1
Guest
I put it to the context.
Lets take a four different kind photographers.
Photographer A that mainly uses his camera on the trips when attending to different tourist sight seeings (bus routes etc) and they usually happens at the daytime. Then the photos are only as 10x15cm and put to album.
Photogrpaher B that mainly uses his camera on the macro photography as he is a lepidopterist. Requiring a A4 size print, couple has been made as 30x20cm prints.
Photographer C that mainly uses her camera in her architecture education and does need a A4 and A5 size prints for final edition of his book, but mainly first a 10x15cm prints for the physical materials.
Photographer D that is a photojournalist and does a lot of on-site photography about companies and politicians etc. Photos goes to online and newspapers and some to weekly magazines (A4-A3 max sizes, typical A5 or smaller).
Now, everyone of these three has different requirements, different situations and totally different requirements for the end results.
A IQ requirements are different for everyone, A scientific lab IQ measurement doesn't put another better than other.
No. I have tested at that moment the best m4/3 sensor (GH4 and E-M1) against the best APS-C and FF cameras up to ISO 3200 and ISO 6400 (identical ISO value on all cameras) and photos has been the test lab photos as real world samples (every camera shooting on from the same tripod with the same field of view and identical aperture value) and then made to 25" diagonal prints and no one managed to spot the IQ difference by the noise.
The IQ difference just isn't there at the specific requirements.
Not just base ISO, the ISO can be higher than most commonly needed and print sizes larger than typically is printed. And the exposures are where photographer nails it with 1 stop accuracy (easy for EVF user in fast situations) and the end medium is that can't even reproduce the dynamic range of the sensors.
Experience person would know that the end result can be such that the IQ isn't compromised. Like person A or person B and person D.
There isn't "ultimate IQ" that is always better than another.
F1 car isn't faster than a some Toyota family wagon when both are required to obey the law and drive on the typical roads from one city part to another. Put them go one city to another and again it is really a tie.
But put them on the F1 race track and F1 will win every single time if it is just for the lap speeds.
It is the context that is the IQ and it is measured differently than pixel peeping the difference at pixel level.
If a person needs a camera that takes great A4 size prints from fashion shows, FF doesn't really provide any advantages. It has already been done, tested and evaluated and results are just that there is no difference. So why to say that FF has the better IQ if you can't see it?
That is nothing else then than a theory about better IQ.
Now do that same photos for a 200cm size prints for close-examination like 30cm and we can start see the differences, if the scenery in the first place was past the capabilities of 4/3" sensor.
This is not complication things, this is simplifying by putting all that to context where the IQ is measured. And then even when the measurements are out, how much does the possible difference matter? That is even then personal question, like if to see the difference requires one to stare the 1x1cm area from a 30x20cm print from a 20cm distance or requires to have the prints above each other, does it matter?
And this doesn't even touch the post process where a lot of things can be changed to way or a another based what ever personal requirements or likeness is wanted!
That is why claims "FF has always IQ advantage" are nothing else than binary thinking.
T
Tommi K1
Guest
The 95% is like you would do all kind photography in every possible way. Like from astrophotography to a macro to fine art to journalism to event to repro to what ever...
And just solely talking about the sensor IQ difference, that would require to use a largest possible sensor and FF is far from the best one for that. But when considering everything else that is in camera (controls, battery life time, size, weight, resolution etc) and the requirements (frame rates, light spectrum sensitivity, resolution etc) and post processing and finally the medium for the viewing. It is that each camera (even with same format) has different offerings and then even that smaller format offers all needed things and more than larger one depending requirements.
This is why a m4/3 system is so flexible as you can take a GH5 body, E-M1 Mk2 body, BPCC and a drone, combine all with the same lenses and have the same optical performance but different bodies capabilities.
It is a single system that covers most requirements far better than any other one.
Clayton1985
Veteran Member
Exactly and further compounded by differences in specific cameras and lenses (speed, IQ, features, etc), whether within the same format and brand or not. This is why the over-generalizations confuse the issue and don't help while using examples with specific equipment and specific scenarios can actually help someone understand what piece of equipment or what system might be a good fit for their specific needs.
knickerhawk
Veteran Member
Yes, print size will certainly affect the (in)visibility of noise of different formats and should be taken into account when considering the right equipment for the need. However, as long as Tommi continues to trot out his favorite anecdote about the "blind" test he did with these relatively large prints at ISO 3200 and 6400 and in which nobody supposedly could tell the difference between mFT and FF images, I will continue to trot out the counter-example of my own tests. At similar sizes and ISOs, I have no difficulty seeing the 2-stop noise difference between mFT and FF images in the test shots I've compared and I can easily train others to see those differences as well (on the relatively rare occasion they don't know what to look for and don't see them initially). At lower ISOs, 16"x20" prints are generally not large enough to dependably see the difference. All this assumes no post-processing and other trickery to obscure the differences.
karlreed
Veteran Member
sounds interesting.
I got another battle for you.
Scan through the images you take with the nikon before you got the M1.2.
Sort out the most challenging, regardless you where satisfied or disappointed with the results.
Try to simulate the situation if you can and make new images with both cameras to compare.
Depending on how matured your skills wit the nikon are this is a hard Challenge for the M1.2.
But more interesting than the result itself:
You will get a guess in witch situations you will miss the nikon most.
Martin
T
Tommi K1
Guest
"Fine Art" isn't about high resolution and ultra find details.
T
Tommi K1
Guest
If you mean "no trickery" as pure raw conversion without any denoising etc, then sure you can get difference visible.
But when you do prints for sale, you edit photos to be at their best (regardless of the format)
But then you can do tests as well OOC JPEG and get same performance that noise difference ain't there.
It is funny how some people take a DPR test shots in raw form to show the difference, meaning they will always print and use the photos from raw files without any basic post process. No wonder the FF is so wanted thing...
But when you do prints for sale, you edit photos to be at their best (regardless of the format)
But then you can do tests as well OOC JPEG and get same performance that noise difference ain't there.
It is funny how some people take a DPR test shots in raw form to show the difference, meaning they will always print and use the photos from raw files without any basic post process. No wonder the FF is so wanted thing...
T
Tommi K1
Guest
That is the usual empirical starting point.
Open the library and check the most used camera settings or just look what others uses.
Rarely shots are wide open at lower than f/2 or at ultra high ISO like 3200. But many thinks that is the where game is played.
Few years ago I met one photograher who started to do musicals and theater. She just bought a 85mm f/1.4 for her canon and had used the 50mm f/1.8. She thought that F stop was to control the background blur and AF to tell camera what was suppose to be in focus. Like literally, that camera would render the focused person in focus while lens would blur just the background. And she had difficulties to get head around about DOF from theory to practice that why she needs to stop down when she paid for the blurry background and now her camera (5Dmk2) can't make the subject sharp so often.
The whole industry has a lot of photographers who go and buy specific cameras like "get canon" or "get FF" without really knowing why they need the specific gear.
Because forums and reviews etc are full of "ISO 12800 in FF vs APS-C" and such talks and discussion. And people want value for their money.
Open the library and check the most used camera settings or just look what others uses.
Rarely shots are wide open at lower than f/2 or at ultra high ISO like 3200. But many thinks that is the where game is played.
Few years ago I met one photograher who started to do musicals and theater. She just bought a 85mm f/1.4 for her canon and had used the 50mm f/1.8. She thought that F stop was to control the background blur and AF to tell camera what was suppose to be in focus. Like literally, that camera would render the focused person in focus while lens would blur just the background. And she had difficulties to get head around about DOF from theory to practice that why she needs to stop down when she paid for the blurry background and now her camera (5Dmk2) can't make the subject sharp so often.
The whole industry has a lot of photographers who go and buy specific cameras like "get canon" or "get FF" without really knowing why they need the specific gear.
Because forums and reviews etc are full of "ISO 12800 in FF vs APS-C" and such talks and discussion. And people want value for their money.
Last edited:
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum