Reading mode: Light Dark

Regrets (or not) on jumping ship from Olympus M4/3

Go to last post
MercedRiver said:
Just how much better is Signal to Noise Ratio and Color Fidelity?

https://medium.com/ice-cream-geomet...l-frame-at-low-light-photography-5ae3851b9986
Click to expand...
If 'Micro Four Thirds cameras are better at Low Light' it must be possible to demonstrate it. But there's not a single photo comparison to support the claim. I wonder why.

And regarding SNR and color fidelity, the article cherry picks two cameras to compare, where the particular M43 camera tests fractionally better than the particular full frame camera. Since when is that evidence for conclusions about sensor size in general?

Fact check analysis: Pseduo-scientific obfuscations.

The actual facts:

All sensor sizes are essentially equal at low light if the rules of equivalence can be followed.

'Color fidelity' is dependent on particular sensor and processing technology.
 
River Photography said:
bobn2 said:
River Photography said:
bobn2 said:
River Photography said:
DGrinb said:
Thank you. I will go through the whole article, but it's kind of known fact the noise is less on FF.
Click to expand...
not even going to read . the first few lines are just drivel.
Click to expand...
Once brand loyalty gets to ridiculous levels, drivel is what results. I remember a guy called 'Don B', who used to frequent the mFT forums and came up with the most absurd demonstrations to show that mFT cameras easily beat FF cameras on most of the things being talked about here. As the song goes, a man hears what he wants to hear
and disregards the rest.
Click to expand...
what was his gallery images like ?
Click to expand...
He had a lot more in his gallery than you do, some of them quite good.
Click to expand...
as i said in the post above. looking back auto focus plays a big part in image quality, im really quite stunned over the years and looking back at images taken that you think are good , you accept and are happy what the camera is producing because its better than the previous camera. this even applies to sony, pentax ,canon,nikon. then i buy my first current model camera the a74 and its on another level completely, i have taken great images with all other brands but the pure af consistency of the a74 blows my mind. i go back and can now see all the other cameras hit and misses even though at the time every image looked good.

Rp
Click to expand...
I agree. Being able to focus accurately is a big contributor to image quality. Also, knowing what to focus on. I suspect that is where some of the new mirrorless sysyems are winning, in that they have recognition tech that selects the subject better than a lot of photographers do.
 
sybersitizen said:
MercedRiver said:
Just how much better is Signal to Noise Ratio and Color Fidelity?

https://medium.com/ice-cream-geomet...l-frame-at-low-light-photography-5ae3851b9986
Click to expand...
If 'Micro Four Thirds cameras are better at Low Light' it must be possible to demonstrate it. But there's not a single photo comparison to support the claim. I wonder why.

And regarding SNR and color fidelity, the article cherry picks two cameras to compare, where the particular M43 camera tests fractionally better than the particular full frame camera. Since when is that evidence for conclusions about sensor size in general?

Fact check analysis: Pseduo-scientific obfuscations.

The actual facts:

All sensor sizes are essentially equal at low light if the rules of equivalence can be followed.

'Color fidelity' is dependent on particular sensor and processing technology.
Click to expand...
It's long winded, but has a germ of truth, which is this - read noise tends (not an absolute rule) to be lower for small pixels. So, if you have a sensor with relatively few small pixels, versus either one with more small pixels or one with the same number of big ones, it's quite possible that the small sensor will have the advantage taking equivalent photos, whether in bright or dark light. It ignores the fact that you can utilise shallow depth of field to get more light onto a big sensor and in those conditions it's going to offer a less noisy photo than the small sensor.
 
bobn2 said:
River Photography said:
bobn2 said:
River Photography said:
bobn2 said:
River Photography said:
DGrinb said:
Thank you. I will go through the whole article, but it's kind of known fact the noise is less on FF.
Click to expand...
not even going to read . the first few lines are just drivel.
Click to expand...
Once brand loyalty gets to ridiculous levels, drivel is what results. I remember a guy called 'Don B', who used to frequent the mFT forums and came up with the most absurd demonstrations to show that mFT cameras easily beat FF cameras on most of the things being talked about here. As the song goes, a man hears what he wants to hear
and disregards the rest.
Click to expand...
what was his gallery images like ?
Click to expand...
He had a lot more in his gallery than you do, some of them quite good.
Click to expand...
as i said in the post above. looking back auto focus plays a big part in image quality, im really quite stunned over the years and looking back at images taken that you think are good , you accept and are happy what the camera is producing because its better than the previous camera. this even applies to sony, pentax ,canon,nikon. then i buy my first current model camera the a74 and its on another level completely, i have taken great images with all other brands but the pure af consistency of the a74 blows my mind. i go back and can now see all the other cameras hit and misses even though at the time every image looked good.

Rp
Click to expand...
I agree. Being able to focus accurately is a big contributor to image quality. Also, knowing what to focus on. I suspect that is where some of the new mirrorless sysyems are winning, in that they have recognition tech that selects the subject better than a lot of photographers do.
Click to expand...
some 12 yo images with a point and shoot :-) what was FF doing back then ? at 500mm working distance :-)

001e00d1bad440c186d2f974a426e044.jpg

e1254c47e82641b0bef539bdd6ad7c51.jpg

07937807368d4b878805a5b62b7d2683.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 891ae8080559449789f2aadcd4112f20.jpg
    891ae8080559449789f2aadcd4112f20.jpg
    1.7 MB · Views: 0
Last edited:
River Photography said:
bobn2 said:
River Photography said:
bobn2 said:
River Photography said:
bobn2 said:
River Photography said:
DGrinb said:
Thank you. I will go through the whole article, but it's kind of known fact the noise is less on FF.
Click to expand...
not even going to read . the first few lines are just drivel.
Click to expand...
Once brand loyalty gets to ridiculous levels, drivel is what results. I remember a guy called 'Don B', who used to frequent the mFT forums and came up with the most absurd demonstrations to show that mFT cameras easily beat FF cameras on most of the things being talked about here. As the song goes, a man hears what he wants to hear
and disregards the rest.
Click to expand...
what was his gallery images like ?
Click to expand...
He had a lot more in his gallery than you do, some of them quite good.
Click to expand...
as i said in the post above. looking back auto focus plays a big part in image quality, im really quite stunned over the years and looking back at images taken that you think are good , you accept and are happy what the camera is producing because its better than the previous camera. this even applies to sony, pentax ,canon,nikon. then i buy my first current model camera the a74 and its on another level completely, i have taken great images with all other brands but the pure af consistency of the a74 blows my mind. i go back and can now see all the other cameras hit and misses even though at the time every image looked good.

Rp
Click to expand...
I agree. Being able to focus accurately is a big contributor to image quality. Also, knowing what to focus on. I suspect that is where some of the new mirrorless sysyems are winning, in that they have recognition tech that selects the subject better than a lot of photographers do.
Click to expand...
some 12 yo images with a point and shoot :-) what was FF doing back then ? at 500mm working distance :-)

001e00d1bad440c186d2f974a426e044.jpg

e1254c47e82641b0bef539bdd6ad7c51.jpg

07937807368d4b878805a5b62b7d2683.jpg
Click to expand...
Macro is one area where a small sensor often gives an advantage, because you're struggling for DOF and often diffraction limited.

--
Is it always wrong
for one to have the hots for
Comrade Kim Yo Jong?
 
bobn2 said:
River Photography said:
bobn2 said:
River Photography said:
bobn2 said:
River Photography said:
bobn2 said:
River Photography said:
DGrinb said:
Thank you. I will go through the whole article, but it's kind of known fact the noise is less on FF.
Click to expand...
not even going to read . the first few lines are just drivel.
Click to expand...
Once brand loyalty gets to ridiculous levels, drivel is what results. I remember a guy called 'Don B', who used to frequent the mFT forums and came up with the most absurd demonstrations to show that mFT cameras easily beat FF cameras on most of the things being talked about here. As the song goes, a man hears what he wants to hear
and disregards the rest.
Click to expand...
what was his gallery images like ?
Click to expand...
He had a lot more in his gallery than you do, some of them quite good.
Click to expand...
as i said in the post above. looking back auto focus plays a big part in image quality, im really quite stunned over the years and looking back at images taken that you think are good , you accept and are happy what the camera is producing because its better than the previous camera. this even applies to sony, pentax ,canon,nikon. then i buy my first current model camera the a74 and its on another level completely, i have taken great images with all other brands but the pure af consistency of the a74 blows my mind. i go back and can now see all the other cameras hit and misses even though at the time every image looked good.

Rp
Click to expand...
I agree. Being able to focus accurately is a big contributor to image quality. Also, knowing what to focus on. I suspect that is where some of the new mirrorless sysyems are winning, in that they have recognition tech that selects the subject better than a lot of photographers do.
Click to expand...
some 12 yo images with a point and shoot :-) what was FF doing back then ? at 500mm working distance :-)

001e00d1bad440c186d2f974a426e044.jpg

e1254c47e82641b0bef539bdd6ad7c51.jpg

07937807368d4b878805a5b62b7d2683.jpg
Click to expand...
Macro is one area where a small sensor often gives an advantage, because you're struggling for DOF and often diffraction limited.
Click to expand...
this particular small sensor camera were close-up/macro game changers. and you could shoot them single handed swinging of a tree branch :-) quite suppressed how good they look on my 4k monitor :-)

Rp
 
Many of the people who say m43 is smaller and lighter go on to recommend the E-M1 or O-M1, neither of which are much if at all smaller and lighter than many FF cameras.

Since a FF sensor is larger, you don't have to enlarge (magnify) the image as much to get the same picture size as a m43 picture. This means a seemingly lower resolution lens on a FF camera will produce a higher resolution image than a better lens on m43 camera, providing both are the same final picture size.

These days many if not most FF cameras have much higher pixel count sensors than m43 cameras. Even if you don't need a much higher resolution picture, you can crop more.

Plus of course there's the ability to get shallower depth of field. Comparing lenses which can shoot at the same DOF, FF can easily be lighter.

Compare a Nikon Z7 and 24-200 to an O-M1 and 12-100.
 
chipman said:
tbcass said:
chipman said:
I shoot wildlife in the ND Badlands. I went from a Pany G9 with 100-400 to Canon R7 with 100-400 + 1.4x TC. I now have a rig that's about the same size, weighs 10% less, costs less, and gives me 60% more pixels and 12% more reach.

I call that a bargain.
Click to expand...
Actually, you have less reach, 560mm vs 800mm equiv in the Panny. The extra 12mp of the R7 cannot make up for that if you crop the R7 to 20mp.
Click to expand...
560 in the lens x 1.6x in the camera. A 20 mp crop is a hair over 2x.

All MFT is 2x in camera.
Click to expand...
I thought the R7 was Full Frame. My mistake. I will say the 100-400 M43 lens is probably sharper than the 100-400 Canon lens with the 1.4x TC. TC always reduces sharpness.
 
bobn2 said:
Nigvo said:
River Photography said:
MercedRiver said:
Comparison of micro four-thirds and medium format.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66530441
Click to expand...
same not even going to open the link. shot m43 for 5 years and FF + apsc the last 2.

I know what i see.the most important factor i now realise is just not image quality but auto focus accuracy. and until buying the latest a74 2 months ago you dont really understand how important AF is.

Rp
Click to expand...
Those of us who used M43 for a long while and failed to see that it was falling behind, as others caught up and overtook M43 with lightweight affordable FF are perhaps the harshest critics of the format.

I see it as a good system for extreme long lens work and with little unobtrusive lightweight bodies and lenses, a good option for street photography. But the big middle where most of us are, is now better served with FF. Period.
Click to expand...
It's interesting that this conversation isn't happening on the micro Four Thirds forum, where it would actually be of interest. I can't see that here on the open forum it will be of great interest to many. Perhaps it started there and has been moved. That at least allows some former and current mFT users to comment, who would otherwise be shut out of the conversation. I see a lot of old friends from that forum here, often under new IDs.
Click to expand...
Yes, the comments I made here in this thread would be "unwelcome" there for sure and it would be "unwise" to make such comments.

I am shy and a new ID is necessary every so often to keep the fans my commenting off my back.
bobn2 said:
For myself, I remain a dual system user, with Panasonic mFT and Nikon FF. No amount of denialism will cover the fact that mFT covers a more restricted shooting envelope than FF, but within its own envelope is difficult to beat for compactness, convenience and ability to be taken almost everywhere.
Click to expand...
True.
 
richarddd said:
Many of the people who say m43 is smaller and lighter go on to recommend the E-M1 or O-M1, neither of which are much if at all smaller and lighter than many FF cameras.
Click to expand...
When people say "M43 is smaller and lighter" it's a comment about the combination of body and lenses, not just the body.

Also, it's just cherry-picking when you say "than many FF cameras" because there are certainly more FF cameras larger and heavier than the EM-1 or OM1
richarddd said:
Compare a Nikon Z7 and 24-200 to an O-M1 and 12-100.
Click to expand...
Again you're cherry-picking. Exceptions don't make the rules. Do the same with my 300/4 Olympus lens... as that 24-200 has no where near the same resolution as the 12-100, the 24-200 is a compromise because it's the only Z lens that matches the focal length of the Olympus lens.

When someone says that M43 is smaller and lighter than FF, there are vastly more examples that prove this right than wrong.

But overall your statements have some ring of truth, mirrorless has helped tremendously reduce the size of FF, but increasing size and weight by 30-50% going from M43 to a mirroless FF is still a big jump and for many of us starts creating the "do I really need this lens on this hike or can I make do without it?"

--
Thanks,
Mike
https://www.travel-curious.com
 
Last edited:
Nigvo said:
Thats not the point. The technical quality of a well exposed FF image is superior to a M43 image. Period.

I just find it annoying when M43 users say there is little difference between the formats.
Click to expand...
As an m43 shooter, I find it confusing too. People post a pretty pictures trying to prove their point.

A side by side comparison is what really matters and the side by side doesn't lie ---

look at the image below full size,





9cf8f92186414c8f8382806ed8401c72.jpg



--
Thanks,
Mike
 
Last edited:
I just bought my last m43 gear.

I've used m43 for a decade, primarily for its size/weight. I've shot side by side with good FF users and the IQ difference is clear. My clients haven't complained but I can tell.

I recently considered leaving m43 but have about 10 lenses that I'd have to dispose of. So I instead "upgraded" to the OM-1 which has been a disappointment.

I like the computational features - great toys that I may use occasionally. But when IQ matters, m43 fails.

I realize we all have different needs. Maybe, finally, I'm no longer satisfied with the distraction of computational features offered by m43.
 
mfinley said:
as that 24-200 has no where near the same resolution as the 12-100, the 24-200 is a compromise because it's the only Z lens that matches the focal length of the Olympus lens.
Click to expand...
I always wonder just on what basis these comparisons are made. Most tests you see are system (camera plus lens) tests, and on that basis the 24-200 delivers higher resolution than any micro Four Thirds lens ever (compare this with this ). People often say that is only because the camera it's mounted on has more pixels, but the pixels wouldn't resolve detail that the lens wasn't giving. The only pure lens resolution tests I've seen are Roger Cicala's and when you look at those the best micro Four Thirds lenses aren't delivering any more absolute resolution than good FF lenses, and when you consider they need twice the enlargement, that puts them at a disadvantage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

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