Is AI noise reduction software now so good as to make the MFT/APS-C discussion old fashioned?

bmoag said:

Yes it is.

DXO and even Adobe noise reduction are that good for anything except uber pixel peeping that has zero impact about how others will see the image on their monitor or in a print.

Click to expand...

Well said.

bmoag said:

It might help to realize that if you're livelihood does not depend on your camera you are only creating personal souvenir snapshots at worst and craft art at best. It makes you happy and passes the time.

i pared down to full frame and m43 and ditched all APS a few years ago. Although the camera bodies are small the lens hefts in APS are identical to full frame because better APS lenses are full frame lenses. APS ends up being a smaller camera body and sensor with a full frame lens hanging off it, might as well go full frame.

Its gotten to the point where its been a few years since I wanted to haul full frame gear on any trek and particularly anything involving telephoto lenses.

You have to go all raw all the time, but that's really a benefit compared to the Kodacolor print mentality that is jpeg shooting.

Click to expand...

LastLapPass said:

IME?

Click to expand...

In this context, IME = in my experience, like IMO = in my opinion.

bmoag said:

You have to go all raw all the time,

Click to expand...

Very good AI noise reduction is available for non-RAW files.

bmoag said:

but that's really a benefit compared to the Kodacolor print mentality that is jpeg shooting.

Click to expand...

I don't think it's helpful to disparage others for their photographic choices.

CarmelSoul said:

CarmelSoul said:

Does MFT offer size and weight advantages over APS-C?

For example, the 26mp APS-C A6700 is smaller and much lighter than the 20mp MFT OM-1.

Click to expand...

But when you start adding adding lenses, MFT generally wins...

Click to expand...

Beat me to it. I see all the time people saying "this FF canera is really compact". Oh yeah, suuuurrrre, but put on a good 24-70mm lens with a decent aperture and see what you get. I like my 12-40mm f/2.8 just fine.

The prices are generally better too, which how I ended up in MFT. I kept seeing decent cameras for very reasonable prices - add a lens and ... No.

Digital Nigel said:

Glen Barrington said:

vanfred said:

I am returning to photography after a few years, and started to use my MFT kit again.

My brief reading on the latest AI powered editing software has been a complete revelation, and was surprised to see how well they clean up noise.

So, I wondered if this new technology partly negates the question about the poorer low light/high ISO performance of MFT compared to APS-C?

Click to expand...

I think so. But in truth, I've never been all that concerned with noise. In my opinion,the only negative regarding m43s at this point, is the minor narrowing of dynamic range. In my experience THAT issue is mostly encountered by those people who don't want to think about proper exposure. Modern m43s cameras offer an adequate amount of DR, but not the best dr. M43s has always been a system that requires a photographer to pay attention to the fundamentals. Light weight and portability comes at a price. You select the tools you need for the job at hand.

Click to expand...

Does MFT offer size and weight advantages over APS-C?

Click to expand...

Sure it does, if you choose with those factors as a priority.

Digital Nigel said:

For example, the 26mp APS-C A6700 is smaller and much lighter than the 20mp MFT OM-1.

Click to expand...

The OM-1 is clearly not among the small MFT cameras. Try something like this:

Digital Nigel said:

Glen Barrington said:

vanfred said:

I am returning to photography after a few years, and started to use my MFT kit again.

My brief reading on the latest AI powered editing software has been a complete revelation, and was surprised to see how well they clean up noise.

So, I wondered if this new technology partly negates the question about the poorer low light/high ISO performance of MFT compared to APS-C?

Click to expand...

I think so. But in truth, I've never been all that concerned with noise. In my opinion,the only negative regarding m43s at this point, is the minor narrowing of dynamic range. In my experience THAT issue is mostly encountered by those people who don't want to think about proper exposure. Modern m43s cameras offer an adequate amount of DR, but not the best dr. M43s has always been a system that requires a photographer to pay attention to the fundamentals. Light weight and portability comes at a price. You select the tools you need for the job at hand.

Click to expand...

Does MFT offer size and weight advantages over APS-C?

For example, the 26mp APS-C A6700 is smaller and much lighter than the 20mp MFT OM

Click to expand...

We've ALL heard these arguments and the counter arguments. In truth i don't care about aps-c, one way or the other. You use whatever floats your boat.

vanfred said:

I am returning to photography after a few years, and started to use my MFT kit again.

My brief reading on the latest AI powered editing software has been a complete revelation, and was surprised to see how well they clean up noise.

So, I wondered if this new technology partly negates the question about the poorer low light/high ISO performance of MFT compared to APS-C?

Click to expand...

Noise reduction, whether AI or otherwise, is a fix for terrible lighting situations, bad camera settings, or just underperforming equipment - whichever way you want to look at it!

IMO, the ideal for photo-graphy is picture-making (graphy) with photons.

One should be clear about whether one's purpose is the making of "art", in which case one should clearly declare it so and in return gain the freedom to use any means and media one deems necessary (so long as not harmful to others!). However, if one's purpose is documentary, one should think very, very, very, very hard about whether downsizing the image to get the desired "clean" look is preferable over the use of AI.

What falls on the documentary side? For starters, journalism (!!!), wildlife, and real estate. I also don't really want to see hallucination in street photography or landscapes. In fact, I would think that noise is generally accepted in street photography, and I trust we don't need to talk about astrophotography. This list is probably incomplete.

I have also been vocal about avoiding in-camera NR. In my opinion, the photographer or editor should be the Master of the Noise.

As for the original question, I think MFT and APS-C have clear use cases. MFT is a very strong wildlife and macro system. APS-C would be my preference for anything where dynamic range or tonality matter more, like portraits. I think it's much more of a "little brother" to full frame than MFT will ever be, at least partly because of physics. Looking at the cameras in your profile, you should be fine for shooting pretty much anything (with the right lens).

Last note: "Photons to Photos" is a great resource for learning about cameras and noise:

https://www.photonstophotos.net/index.htm

--
39 raw converters tested:
https://breakfastographer.wordpress...erters-compared-including-on1-photo-raw-2019/

NAwlins Contrarian said:

NAwlins Contrarian said:

IME?

Click to expand...

In this context, IME = in my experience, like IMO = in my opinion.

Click to expand...

OIC :-D

Thanks for all the replies, they made fascinating reading. I never realised just how much photo editing has advanced so much in the last few years.

My use of Olympus cameras started way back with my OM2 and OM Zuiko lenses so when I moved to digital I gave little thought to sensor size, I just bought Olympus again and built up a good collection of m.zuiko and Panasonic lenses.

But always in the back of my mind I have been thinking, was that the right choice, should I have thought more about sensor size.



I think what I have learnt from this thread is forget the sensor, just use what I have got.

Thanks everyone

Zeee said:

Boris22 said:

I own no noise software and yes it is very good. Makes me think back 50 yrs ago when in order to create DESIRED exaggerated grain for a special effect I would photograph portions of my transparencies through a low magnification microscope objective. Now I'm paying big bucks to get rid of it.

Click to expand...

40 years ago I hated putting 400 ISO B&W and colour film my cameras.

Click to expand...

High speed Kodachrome 200 was the highest for me. That was a slide film with incredible detail shot with my Nikon 35 TI and viewing with the Leitz Colorplan 2.8/90 mm Pradovit projector (still do)

vanfred said:

Thanks for all the replies, they made fascinating reading. I never realised just how much photo editing has advanced so much in the last few years.

My use of Olympus cameras started way back with my OM2 and OM Zuiko lenses so when I moved to digital I gave little thought to sensor size, I just bought Olympus again and built up a good collection of m.zuiko and Panasonic lenses.

But always in the back of my mind I have been thinking, was that the right choice, should I have thought more about sensor size.

I think what I have learnt from this thread is forget the sensor, just use what I have got.

Click to expand...

Small or large sensor it is all about exposure. Get that correct to minimize noise and you are off to a great start.

vanfred said:

Thanks everyone

Click to expand...

Zeee said:

vanfred said:

Thanks for all the replies, they made fascinating reading. I never realised just how much photo editing has advanced so much in the last few years.

My use of Olympus cameras started way back with my OM2 and OM Zuiko lenses so when I moved to digital I gave little thought to sensor size, I just bought Olympus again and built up a good collection of m.zuiko and Panasonic lenses.

But always in the back of my mind I have been thinking, was that the right choice, should I have thought more about sensor size.

I think what I have learnt from this thread is forget the sensor, just use what I have got.

Click to expand...

Small or large sensor it is all about exposure. Get that correct to minimize noise and you are off to a great start.

Click to expand...

Not really, because you’ll blow the highlights in high dynamic range scenes. So I expose for the highlights, knowing that I can lift the dark shadows without problems.

Digital Nigel said:

Zeee said:

vanfred said:

Thanks for all the replies, they made fascinating reading. I never realised just how much photo editing has advanced so much in the last few years.

My use of Olympus cameras started way back with my OM2 and OM Zuiko lenses so when I moved to digital I gave little thought to sensor size, I just bought Olympus again and built up a good collection of m.zuiko and Panasonic lenses.

But always in the back of my mind I have been thinking, was that the right choice, should I have thought more about sensor size.

I think what I have learnt from this thread is forget the sensor, just use what I have got.

Click to expand...

Small or large sensor it is all about exposure. Get that correct to minimize noise and you are off to a great start.

Click to expand...

Not really, because you’ll blow the highlights in high dynamic range scenes. So I expose for the highlights, knowing that I can lift the dark shadows without problems.

Click to expand...

I don't see any incompatibility between what both of you are saying. It's just a matter of how you define "correct exposure".

My cameras are ISO-invariant, which lets me "underexpose" to protect highlights and the brighten by up to four stops in post without incurring any more noise than I'd get by using a higher ISO to get a "correct" exposure. Very handy in my indoor event work, where I'm often capturing both a brightly lit stage and a dimly lit audience.

vanfred said:

Thanks for all the replies, they made fascinating reading. I never realised just how much photo editing has advanced so much in the last few years.

My use of Olympus cameras started way back with my OM2 and OM Zuiko lenses so when I moved to digital I gave little thought to sensor size, I just bought Olympus again and built up a good collection of m.zuiko and Panasonic lenses.

But always in the back of my mind I have been thinking, was that the right choice, should I have thought more about sensor size.

I think what I have learnt from this thread is forget the sensor, just use what I have got.

Thanks everyone

Click to expand...

I have found it useful to think about sensor size in terms of ability to trade shallow DoF for noise, which is a function of the lens' max aperture, not the sensor. When comparing sensors of different sizes with similar technology and efficiency, you cannot get less noise at the same exposure without accepting shallower DoF. So, if I'm making a shot that requires deeper DoF, I can get the same DoF and noise from a 35mm-format camera at f5.6 and an MFT camera at f2.8.

The reason why 35mm format can deliver less noise is not that the sensor is less noisy, but simply that lenses made for 35mm format are often available with physically larger max apertures than those made for other formats, and this applies to both larger and smaller formats. For example, to match the light-gathering ability of a 35mm-format 85/1.4, you'd need a 42.5/0.7 for MFT, a 55/0.9 for APS, or a 105/1.7 for Fuji GFX medium format, none of which are available. The 35mm-format low-light advantage kicks in at f1.8 and larger apertures, where equivalents for MFT and APS are often absent.