cathal gantly, post: 68278665, member: 506069"]
For my sins, I have also (a long time ago) shot dog agility. None of the pictures you've posted would be impossible to get with micro four thirds.
I welcome you to show me your indoors dog agility photographs at below EV5 that matches the IQ of a full frame camera and make me a believer. Only below EV5 please, because those shots I took were all taken above ISO 20,000 @ 1/2000sec, which is below EV5. You are telling me that MFT can NOT only rival or even exceed the IQ performance of a full frame at ISO 20,000?!? So, show me please your examples. This I really need to see.
This is a continuation of an earlier topic.
I'm still waiting to see examples of images that could not be captured with a micro four thirds camera. By not captured, I mean the micro four thirds camera could not get a useable photo because of a technological limitation of the system.
- You say useable, but don’t define “useables” parameters. Useable is subjective, can you define more specifically what useable means to you?
[/QUOTE]
The "useable" part is actually irrelevant. The hyperbole of "images micro four thirds can't get" is what I was calling out, quite simply, because it is a bullsh!t statement without merit. You will get an image with any system, and the better skills you have the better images you will produce. Obviously, certain parameters will be dictated by the quality and performance of the output the equipment is capable of, but that is a completely different argument.
As an example, in the previous thread another person posted two stained glass images of the same window. The image shot with FF Panasonic was, to my eyes and screen, the marginally better quality image. Taken in isolation though, nobody would know the difference, never mind care.
- Do you not care about the image as a whole or are you interested in “eh, ok, I guess that’s fine” kind of images?
As a photographic judge, and a keen photographer for almost 45 years, of course I care about the image. I've enough knowledge, wisdom and experience to determine that actual image quality is secondary to a quality image.
- What about your first sentence: “examples of images that could not be captured with a micro four thirds camera? I mean Canon has 3D lenses that can’t be used on M43. That’s a technological thing that M43 can’t do. Or are you also referring to things like ultra shallow DoF, global shutter, 8K video (after all video is just a long succession of images at a given frame rate…?
Panasonic produced a few 3D lenses for use with micro four thirds, back around 2010, when people mistakenly thought 3D TV would be thing. So, not only is it a thing micro four thirds can do, I'm confident it could do it before any other format. And besides, Canon lenses can be adapted.
Sure, ultra shallow depth of field is a thing, but just a thing. You can get ultra shallow depth of field using very fast, telephoto lenses, (depth of field is ultimately determined by sensor size). Two things though. Ultra shallow depth of field is not always a good or desired thing (and when used, pray that your lenses can handle out of focus backgrounds nicely). If your system is built around an ultra shallow depth of field requirement, it's medium format, right?
The video thing... good point. Sharp almost released an 8K micro four thirds camera, but for whatever reasons, didn't. 6K is about as much as micro four thirds can do right now, and 4K is where it trumps every other system. Look what BlackMagicDesign (BMD) produce for example. What four thirds sensors most noticeably lack is an ultra high capacity sensor, in the 40MP+ region, which would enable 8K video. I've stated many times that being stuck at the 20/25MP sensor capacity is a problem for the system, simply because its so easy to market against, and has no higher resolution cameras to grow into. I think we are years away from 8K video becoming mainstream, and who knows what cameras will be available in five years time? But with regards to video, and 4K in particular, micro four thirds is one of the best options, using the GH4 onwards, or BMD Pocket Cinema Camera.
Global Shutter? Not available in micro four thirds. If you think your photography absolutely requires that, then obviously you'd go for a system that offers it.
To paragraph another person: “Look”…
I’m as bigger fan of M43 than anyone, including Emily from MircoFourNerds even though I have less gear, but even I can admit there are things My God-awesome gear can’t compete with. I’ll never get the shallow DoF that is possible with something like F1.2 primes on FF. I’ll never get the low noise images at insanely high ISOs like a FF camera - Just a few days ago, I played with a few different FF cameras and lenses, and ISO3200 and ISO6400 looks so good on those cameras and they don’t on any M43 - I’ve actually never seen a good 16-25MP image taken at ISO3200 on M43, I’ve seen ok, but grainy and detail lacking ones. But nothing remotely in the same universe as an S5II.
I've yet to use an S5ii, but I do really like the Panasonic FF cameras (except the S9, which is the last camera I would buy... too many compromises for me). I have used AI noise reduction in Adobe Lightroom Classic and I've found it to be excellent. Old images from my long-gone Nikon D100 (one of the very first consumer dSLR cameras) for example clean up nicely, as do images from my EM1.ii. But I started photography a long time ago when 400ASA (ISO wasn't a thing then) was considered fast, and pushing to 1,600 was esoteric. I don't usually push ISO beyond 800... but with AI noise reduction I know I can go faster if I need to. Of course, the AI will also work on FF images.
Answering your own statement. If I were to start from scratch, for whatever reason, I'm not sure I would start with micro four thirds. Like many, I've a considerable investment in the system, and with a few limitations, still does everything I need. The cost of a wholesale system change would be very high, and the return on that relatively low. So it is more than sufficient for my want, needs, and most of my desires. I'm fortunate to be using higher quality equipment.
Again, the single area where micro four thirds is lacking is high capacity sensors. It finishes where FF begins, and can only dream of the capacity of medium format. I have stated numerous times why I think this is a problem, which actually has little to do with image quality, and everything to do with perception.
If (it's a big if) I add another system, it would be to gain access to higher capacity sensors. The two systems in the frame for me are the L mount (S1R) and Fuji GFX (50r / 50Sii). Initially, these would be used with adapted lenses. Depending on the experience and output, I'd gradually shift to which ever system I'd choose...
So here's the interesting thing. I'm considering adding another system, but only one of those could potentially replace micro four thirds. Medium format would add the best image quality, but would subtract a significant amount of versatility. I'd have to keep the micro four thirds system, because it can things the medium format system can't. If I added a FF system that could replace micro four thirds, but there would be gains and losses, so a compromise.
And that's the key to it all... what you and I can compromise on may well be different. But to get back to the original point, I've yet to find something I can't photograph using micro four thirds.
