Almost went back to FF... Then This Happened

absquatulate wrote:

mostlyboringphotog wrote:

SUPER-ELMAR wrote:

absquatulate wrote:

Steppen wolf wrote:

I think that the difference between larger formats and the smaller ones has been diminishing with every new generation of sensors. The main advantage of the larger sensor is better low light performance but m4/3 can deliver acceptable performance at ISO3200 now so it's fine for most uses.

I've got a Sony A7RIII and an EM5 mkIII and I'm not sure I can tell the difference between their photo quality.

You've got to be kidding me, I've got the A7RIII and have shot plenty of m4/3's over the years (including the G9), it's a night and day difference, if you can't see the difference you should really get rid of the A7RIII, you wasted your money. That doesn't mean the EM5 3 is bad, but there's a hell of a difference just on detail alone (as you'd expect), before you even consider dynamic range and colour depth.

A marginal benefit under some conditions perhaps. EM5.3 offers marginal benefit in other conditions. Hardly night vs day, or is this hyperbolic expression?

If you can not produce high quality images with either camera then perhaps you wasted your money on photography.

I suppose "night and day" is somewhat subjective but the below comes close imho...

No, this doesn't really tell the whole story. Now imagine if I said to the people on here that I couldn't see the difference between my humble Nikon P7800 and an m4/3's camera? It's actually a very decent camera with a very sharp and fast lens, it also has excellent image stabilisation, and yes, it can take very good quality images, even though it has a 1/1.7" sensor in it.

I'm pretty sure many people would laugh and then tell me all the ways that an m4/3's sensor is superior, same thing. As it happens, sometimes the Nikon P7800 is the right tool for the job, and any half-decent photographer can get excellent images from it that will print to a very decent size.

However, if I want a powerful versatile camera, that will get me the best quality images I can possibly get, (which is pretty much future-proof for a very long time) which camera out of these three do you think I'm going to pick? Size and weight isn't an issue because I use the excellent 28-200mm Tamron F2.8-5.6 lens and one fast prime, for everything I shoot, this all fits into a small case logic sling bag. It gives me the same range as the Nikon P7800, just at a much higher quality. Of course an m4/3's user could have EM5 mkIII, or G9, and use the m.zuiko 12-100mm F4, but it still isn't going to match the A7RIII and lens I have for the things I want, is it capable of excellent photo's? of course, and it'll be more than good enough for many people, just like the P7800 can be.

I don't just use the A7RIII for it's higher image quality, there are other legitimate reasons, more versatile dof control (a double edged sword for sure), it's ability to shoot my collection of film era lenses at their designed fov, it's superior auto-focusing etc. My Nikon P7800 is positively pedestrian compared to both the other cameras here, but it's still a good option for certain things.

This isn't about what's best for everyone, it's about choosing the best tool for you, but let's not kid ourselves, the difference between the A7RIII is as night day as the difference between the P7800 and an M4/3's camera, the evidence is right in front of you.

Funny how these graphs mean different things to different folks.  These graphs are part of what made me take a chance on m43.  M43 is basically 2 stops behind, but when you want depth of field (as I do when taking wilderness shots on long backpacking trips), you have to stop down the ff two stops more than the m43 to get equivalent depth of field.  This makes it about a wash even before you consider the better IBIS on the smaller system.