Reading mode: Light Dark

IQ vs feaures

Go to last post
I agree. It's more about the lens. You can gain more IQ investing there than you can with a new body.

I can't make a better SAF image on the EM-1 than I can on the EM-5 with the same lens, but I can make a heck of a better image with the 12-40PRO, 40-150PRO, 17 f/1.8 and 75 f/1.8 than I can with a 14-42, or 14-150.
 
Okapi001 said:
nick779 said:
Im mostly happy with the IQ from my 16MP sensor, I only wish for less noise and a true 100 base iso. Sometimes the noise in OOF areas just looks gross especially when you compare to other sensors.

I know I can still upgrade to the EM1.2 and I want to, just not yet.
Click to expand...
Or you can make better use of post-processing. Removing noise in out-of-focus areas can be very effective (to the point you no longer see any difference to larger sensors).
Click to expand...
Oh believe me, I do.

The Jpeg processing even with noise reduction set to OFF, and DxO (standard and PRIME NR) Make the vast majority of the shots pretty clean. I suppose I just want better RAWs. No practical reason why though.
 
First off, congrats on some great images. Now the story

Recently a good friend and excellent photographer, added an E-M1 II kit to his Canon 1Dx/5D's as, as he put it, an "adjunct" for flowers and dragonflies. Over the past month I've had great pleasure watching the "enlightenment" of my friend. Just a few examples and what I think are the features that may have gone into his ongoing transformation....

"Wow, it's really hard to get blowouts with this little guy" - Maybe the fact that the dynamic range of the E-M1 Ii is about 1 stop better than the Canon, or perhaps the ability to manage the exposure comp. through the viewfinder helps "a little"?

"Holy cow look at the crisp detail in these flowers" - Maybe no AA filter, some great IBIS, and focus peaking helps this? Or, maybe not having to crop so much in PP?

"Look how cool it is that Olympus makes this neat positive lock to keep the lens hood on my 12-40, I always hated that my Canon hood would fall off"

The examples just keep adding up (the 5D is up for sale)

My point is, that in real life it may be the sum of the features that help with the IQ...maybe??
 
Last edited:
regardless of filters and features the camera may have, some shots can be done without them and some only with them, but at the end o0f the day the picture itself must stand on its own merit
 
Jonas Palm said:
Sensor output forms the base line for all subsequent processing.

That said, of course a system is a total package deal. Nobody would argue otherwise. On the other hand, if you are investing (or considering investing) in a system, it also makes sense to question how it may evolve, and singling out the question marks is eminently reasonable. And for a format that has a quarter of the light gathering sensor area its competitors offer, sensor quality is a prime consideration.

So the sensor focussed threads aren't going to go away. They are intrinsic to the format,
Click to expand...
Not any more so than with APS or 35mm formats, and you don't find folks in the DSLR forums constantly whining that 35mm format has to "catch up" to medium or large format sensors. The sensor hand-wringing in this forum is largely driven by users of larger formats who stage drive-bys here to make themselves feel superior.
Jonas Palm said:
and the unique balance that m43 systems offer.
Click to expand...
In the film days, I shot 35mm and 67, and I never found the kind of slagging of 35mm by medium-format users that we see here.
 
gary0319 said:
First off, congrats on some great images. Now the story

Recently a good friend and excellent photographer, added an E-M1 II kit to his Canon 1Dx/5D's as, as he put it, an "adjunct" for flowers and dragonflies. Over the past month I've had great pleasure watching the "enlightenment" of my friend. Just a few examples and what I think are the features that may have gone into his ongoing transformation....

"Wow, it's really hard to get blowouts with this little guy" - Maybe the fact that the dynamic range of the E-M1 Ii is about 1 stop better than the Canon, or perhaps the ability to manage the exposure comp. through the viewfinder helps "a little"?

"Holy cow look at the crisp detail in these flowers" - Maybe no AA filter, some great IBIS, and focus peaking helps this? Or, maybe not having to crop so much in PP?

"Look how cool it is that Olympus makes this neat positive lock to keep the lens hood on my 12-40, I always hated that my Canon hood would fall off"
Click to expand...
Good quotes. I have the JJC LH-J66 generic hood on my 12-40 which takes it up a notch. It has a small sliding door at one end of the hood to make it very easy to manage a CPL filter :-D
gary0319 said:
The examples just keep adding up (the 5D is up for sale)

My point is, that in real life it may be the sum of the features that help with the IQ...maybe??
Click to expand...
--
If you don't get older and wiser, than you just get older.
 
Last edited:
gary0319 said:
...

"Look how cool it is that Olympus makes this neat positive lock to keep the lens hood on my 12-40, I always hated that my Canon hood would fall off"
Click to expand...
Liked your story but I have to say that is a first around here - praise for the 12-40Pro hood. In the 3 years I've owned mine, I haven't had a single problem. But, after reading numerous tales of woe, I'm super careful with it.
 
phil from seattle said:
gary0319 said:
...

"Look how cool it is that Olympus makes this neat positive lock to keep the lens hood on my 12-40, I always hated that my Canon hood would fall off"
Click to expand...
Liked your story but I have to say that is a first around here - praise for the 12-40Pro hood. In the 3 years I've owned mine, I haven't had a single problem. But, after reading numerous tales of woe, I'm super careful with it.
Click to expand...
It is a praise worthy hood, until it self destructs 😉 Because of all the reports of the Oly 12-40, and Oly 40-150 Pro hoods coming apart, I replaced both with generic hoods an keep the original for the day (if it ever comes) that I sell it. The JJC hood for my 40-150 is actually for a Canon lens but it fits and is reversable.
 
jhunna said:
Stejo said:
For my needs, the IQ of every single ILC out there currently is good enough. I'd take better handling and features over an extra stop of dynamic range or high iso performance any day. Especially on the video side of things.
Click to expand...
Couldn’t agree more. Handling and features are far more important to me than better sensor. But when they give you both handling/features AND better sensor its hard to pass up (GX85 > GX9).
Click to expand...
I’ll third that comment... my EM1.2 is not only considerably better handling than any of my past Sony or older Canon cameras, it’s feature set leaves them in its dust. The improvements over the EM5.2 were less obvious but still noticeable in the IQ it renders.

As a compact RF body, the GX9 I recently bought still lags in many ways behind the EM1.2 but is much closer that the GX8 was. Yet it is so far ahead of my A6300 in features any slight IQ advantage the Sony has seem insignificant.
 
gary0319 said:
First off, congrats on some great images. Now the story

Recently a good friend and excellent photographer, added an E-M1 II kit to his Canon 1Dx/5D's as, as he put it, an "adjunct" for flowers and dragonflies. Over the past month I've had great pleasure watching the "enlightenment" of my friend. Just a few examples and what I think are the features that may have gone into his ongoing transformation....

"Wow, it's really hard to get blowouts with this little guy" - Maybe the fact that the dynamic range of the E-M1 Ii is about 1 stop better than the Canon, or perhaps the ability to manage the exposure comp. through the viewfinder helps "a little"?

"Holy cow look at the crisp detail in these flowers" - Maybe no AA filter, some great IBIS, and focus peaking helps this? Or, maybe not having to crop so much in PP?

"Look how cool it is that Olympus makes this neat positive lock to keep the lens hood on my 12-40, I always hated that my Canon hood would fall off"

The examples just keep adding up (the 5D is up for sale)

My point is, that in real life it may be the sum of the features that help with the IQ...maybe??
Click to expand...
Love this... your friend’s experience emulates mine coming from the Sony environment. I just no longer see any advantage to take the remaining A6300 any time now.
 
Foto4x4 said:
jhunna said:
Stejo said:
For my needs, the IQ of every single ILC out there currently is good enough. I'd take better handling and features over an extra stop of dynamic range or high iso performance any day. Especially on the video side of things.
Click to expand...
Couldn’t agree more. Handling and features are far more important to me than better sensor. But when they give you both handling/features AND better sensor its hard to pass up (GX85 > GX9).
Click to expand...
I’ll third that comment... my EM1.2 is not only considerably better handling than any of my past Sony or older Canon cameras, it’s feature set leaves them in its dust. The improvements over the EM5.2 were less obvious but still noticeable in the IQ it renders.

As a compact RF body, the GX9 I recently bought still lags in many ways behind the EM1.2 but is much closer that the GX8 was. Yet it is so far ahead of my A6300 in features any slight IQ advantage the Sony has seem insignificant.
Click to expand...
 
Jacques Cornell said:
Not any more so than with APS or 35mm formats, and you don't find folks in the DSLR forums constantly whining that 35mm format has to "catch up" to medium or large format sensors. The sensor hand-wringing in this forum is largely driven by users of larger formats who stage drive-bys here to make themselves feel superior.
Click to expand...
Just like the not so subtle one the preceded your post...
 
Wu Jiaqiu said:
does that mean you take better pictures than you did before?
Click to expand...
Yes. Quicker, more consistent AF, better lenses, outstanding IBIS, etc, etc all add to better results. It’s not all about the number of pixels...
 
gary0319 said:
First off, congrats on some great images. Now the story

Recently a good friend and excellent photographer, added an E-M1 II kit to his Canon 1Dx/5D's as, as he put it, an "adjunct" for flowers and dragonflies. Over the past month I've had great pleasure watching the "enlightenment" of my friend. Just a few examples and what I think are the features that may have gone into his ongoing transformation....

"Wow, it's really hard to get blowouts with this little guy" - Maybe the fact that the dynamic range of the E-M1 Ii is about 1 stop better than the Canon, or perhaps the ability to manage the exposure comp. through the viewfinder helps "a little"?

"Holy cow look at the crisp detail in these flowers" - Maybe no AA filter, some great IBIS, and focus peaking helps this? Or, maybe not having to crop so much in PP?

"Look how cool it is that Olympus makes this neat positive lock to keep the lens hood on my 12-40, I always hated that my Canon hood would fall off"

The examples just keep adding up (the 5D is up for sale)

My point is, that in real life it may be the sum of the features that help with the IQ...maybe??
Click to expand...
the little things can all add up to help obtain a better final image. Just going by lab test doesn't necessarily relate to what you will get in the field.

However your comparison lacks a few details. The m43 gear is the latest greatest available. Is the 5D a MKI? If so no surprise there or even for the next gen or 2. The latest Canon DSLR gear is every bit as good or better than the m43 setup you mentioned. Also it would be bigger and heavier which in actual picture taking is an advantage.

The basic premise that how you actually use something in the field contributes to the quality of the final output is very correct.

So I agree with what you wrote, but it seems a few details in your comparison have been left out.
 
I shot a poorly lit museum with a PL-7. A friend brought a 7D MKII. We compared photos. The only difference we could see, was even though I brought a small bag and he brought a big one, he didn't have room for a fisheye and I did. I gave him those photos, didn't need any of his.

He became interested in M43 but he lusted after a SONY A7II kit a photographer brought with the 70-200 F/4 and the 90 Macro.

The Panasonic G9 has his attention now.
 
Last edited:
MShot said:
I shot a poorly lit museum with a PL-7. A friend brought a 7D MKII. We compared photos. The only difference we could see, was even though I brought a small bag and he brought a big one, he didn't have room for a fisheye and I did. I gave him those photos, didn't need any of his.

He became interested in M43 but he lusted after a SONY A7II kit a photographer brought with the 70-200 F/4 and the 90 Macro.

The Panasonic G9 has his attention now.
Click to expand...
7D is indeed a big heavy camera. It is a crop camera that weighs as much or more than a FF DSLR. It is a sports and action camera. Your friend had the wrong gear with him.

Nothing wrong with getting m43 gear, but a Canon SL2 would also have done nicely and is no burden to carry around all day.

I have a Pl7 also and on my last museum visit I used it with the 17 1.8. Great combo inside with little light. Limiting to one FL though, but for what I was doing it worked fine. Small m43 cameras with primes are where m43 shine I think.

However, if you and your friend were photographing a sporting event it would have been a totally different story.
 
Wu Jiaqiu said:
Foto4x4 said:
Wu Jiaqiu said:
does that mean you take better pictures than you did before?
Click to expand...
Yes. Quicker, more consistent AF, better lenses, outstanding IBIS, etc, etc all add to better results. It’s not all about the number of pixels...

--
Cheers,
John
Quote: “If your pictures aren’t good enough, you’re not close enough.”, Robert Capa
Click to expand...
no it's not all about the number of pixels but a better camera with more features doesn't necessarily mean someone's photography improves
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree that improvement isn't automatic. But with IBIS, for example, I get shots I couldn't without it. Certainly not with my DSLR and frankly even with earlier versions of IBIS. It didn't make me have a better sense of composition but it allowed me to capture my intent where I couldn't before without a tripod. IBIS or a tripod allows me to take better photos. And, with IBIS, I can take more photos from different viewpoints in a given amount of time. I get better photos because the tool allows me to execute on my vision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
Macro with Pentax
Replies
13
Views
3K
Gman58
G
arniebook
Are Z8, Z9 immune to rolling shutter?
Replies
0
Views
11K
arniebook
arniebook
Jim B (MSP)
*** CIC 276: Nov 2025 Everyday Geometry — At Home
Replies
6
Views
32K
Dave
Dave
T
>>>Light and Shadow (Also, Light and/or Shadow!)<<<
2
Replies
37
Views
24K
Dave
Dave
T
>>>>>>>CIC 268: Open Challenge II<<<<<<<
2
Replies
35
Views
12K
Dave
Dave

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top