DXO: m4/3 vs. FF -- we have it good!

Started Sep 4, 2019 | Discussions thread
esco Senior Member • Posts: 1,862
Re: DXO: m4/3 vs. FF -- we have it good!

Boss of Sony wrote:

Henry Richardson wrote:

I have been using m4/3 since April 2012. For the types of things I mostly photograph and the way I do it the smaller size and lower weight of all the gear is very welcome. The sensors in the Olympus and Panasonic bodies are quite good and I am satisfied with them. I was just curious how the current m4/3 cameras compare to FF from not so long back. I looked at the E-M1II vs. Canon 5DII vs Sony A900. Of course, current FF is even better, but m4/3 has pretty much similar performance as fairly recent FF and in some areas better performance than just a few years ago. Amazing progress.

Many people are still making fantastic photos with the Canon 5DII and Sony A900 because they are still excellent. By the way, I chose those 2 for comparison because a few years ago I seriously considered buying them. For several years I was shooting Sony and had a bunch of lenses so thought about getting the A900. Also, for several years I was shooting Canon and had several lenses and thought about getting the 5DII. I used the E-M1II because DXO has not yet tested the G9 and E-M1X. I expect their scores would be very similar though.

Here is the link:


I don't see the point of these graphs. If you have ever tried to push the shadows and highlights of an ISO 1600 RAW file in post-processing, you will see a vast difference between a recent M43 camera and a recent full-frame camera. It's simple physics. The full frame sensor captures nearly 4 times as much light. The surface area is nearly 4 times as large.

This ^^

Even from an old FF camera. . .it's hard to match the flexibility of those files. You can push shadows for several stops before they fall apart. You can shoot at 1600 and 3200 fairly cleanly with those bodies too - something I simply cannot do with any cropped sensor body no matter how new. Anyone who's spent time processing FF files will immediately notice this.
It's hard to match the light gathering ability of a FF body with a bright lens as well even if the sensors were equal performing - an F1.8 or F1.4 lens on an FF body there simply isn't a equivalent for in m4/3 and the closest setup actually costs more than the equivalent FF setup (yeah someone will probably try comparing the newest FF body here with the newest zeiss glass attached as a comparison etc. . .)
It's totally ok for a smaller sensor to not fully achieve the equivalence of a much larger one - These systems were intended for different purposes. Hopefully people have understood the compromises had with either system before purchasing.
My m/3 system is my travel and hiking system and i'm fully aware that i'd get better results with my FF system by a long shot to be honest but i'd end up looking like an obnoxious kitted out tourist photographer that seemingly always gets in everyone's way and is only able to pack one set of clothes because he ran out of his carry-on allowance.
I'll carry a light load and try my best to squeeze what i can out of these small sensors post process instead. I fully understand the pros and cons of these systems - no need to practice mental gymnastics against proven physics

-- hide signature --

Photographer first, gear second

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow