Thanks for the link.
I liked this bit:
"because once you stop comparing spec sheets and start comparing experiences, Micro Four Thirds looks like it might be leading the charge."
Add in the sheer fun of using these cameras and you quickly forget about the flogged-to-death rhetoric about sensor size, equivalency, and other nonsense issues.
I still get an almost sadistic pleasure out of using my little EM10IV when travelling while seeing other photogs hauling around kilograms of heavy metal.
And users of 1" compacts feel the same towards you and the bloody phone photographers are laughing at us all . And just like fans of anything they think they and only they are right
I think M43 is where image quality starts to jump.
That is a matter of opinion the "jump" from 1" to m43 is smaller than the jump between m43 and FF
Is it only a matter of opinon where the argument doesn't suit your premise?
It is absolutly a matter of opinion when discussing sensor sizes . The jump from m43 to FF is indeed greater than between 1" sensors and m43 .
Not only because of the sensor but the ability to change lenses.
I agree 100% with this I would never choose a fixed lens camera as my only camera. Not just for lenses most of the 1" sensor cameras are small and fiddly ( for me )
You can get great photos from 1 inch sensor cameras but it's not quite up to scratch for my tastes. I use my FZ330 quite a bit but that is purely a daylight and no more than iso 800 camera for me.
I think the fly in the ointment of most 1" cameras is the lens they squeeze an awful lot in to say the RX100 series so something has to give. My wife loves her RX100 V and also has an RX10 IV which is a different beast the lens is excellent . The difference between 1" and m43 is approx 1 stop.
Daylight 3200 vs 1600 ISO 100% crops
There is more than stop difference here and when viewed at 100% on a 4k monitor we can see that although the 1" sensor is doing well all things considered.
The difference is indeed one stop m43 has just under double the sensor area of 1" sensors FF has just under 4x the area of m43 . As I say for most 1" sensor compact models the lens is given the size not surprisingly a bit of a compromise . The RX10 IV however has an excellent lens
This is a wild 200% comparison between the Nikon J5 and OM-1 the J5 did allow for using different lenses
And the 800 vs 800 ISO
Not that it matters to you as from the images you post technical details ( noise, sharpness , exposure etc ) are far from what would produce the best image quality. Before you get your knickers in a twist. I am only talking about technical image quality aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder
It seems you have your knickers in a twist and I agree James, .6 sec HHHR exposures at ISO 3200 f5,6 80mm equiv and 1.6 seconds 3200 handheld on at f8 equiv in scenarios that are essentially darkness with only distant ambient light on M43 are far from what produces the best image quality...
The point is YOU presumably think think these are good quality , you are wandering about the street standing for seconds outside the buildings . In what are totally static scenes a tripod and using the better pixel shift mode would give far better results . Even a small tripod of other support would improve things greatly
James, again your presumptions are off, despite the obvious clues. That said I think this has gone beyond banter and yes, I take part blame in that. So my apologies. I think we can do better than this.
That said it is very easy to dismiss the work, I get that. However I will go away to explain where this work is coming from, and it does actually play into many of the ideas we are discussing here. This will sound a little "wafty,but at the sametime - its my gig.
If you knew where your critique of my work should be directed, you would see it more clearly. It is not in the realm of test charts but in the history of photography, its broader social implications, and its intersections with technology.
My concerns are not about “best quality” or the pursuit of technical optimisation (if they were, I would obviously be using a tripod) but about the broader conceptual issues that photography has always engaged with: the recording and documentation of private spaces, residences, trespassing, thresholds, boundaries, and non-spaces, and how these themes intersect with the compositional grid as both a structure and a disruption. This work is not about fidelity for its own sake, but about what becomes possible through technological progress and how that connects to the evolution of the snapshot.
Your critique outlined everything here but what is obvious. These are snapshots, and that is precisely the point. The snapshot is not only the most common form of photography, but also the quickest means of crossing or provoking boundaries. It carries clear references to topographical concerns and street photography, and to the wider idea of the camera’s power not only to record but to provoke questions of human and social concern. Alongside this, I deliberately employ formal composition that references the traditions of the plastic arts, using this as a juxtaposition with the snapshot aesthetic to heighten the conceptual tension in the work.
Your assumption that this falls outside of intention somewhat misses the point. The snapshot is the entire conceptual basis of the work, and it stands in direct opposition to what you suggest I should do. I know the tools, I have used them many times, but in this context they carry an ideology of control and permanence that I am working against. The point is not technical refinement, but a critical look at how images operate socially, spatially, and historically within the logic of the snapshot, and within this, how one achieves outcomes only possible in the current technological climate. This also plays into the physical action of photography and the photographers eyeline being the vantage point as it applies to handheld photgraphy. The tripod in this sense removes the photographer - the tripods phyical restrictions sets the parameters.
These photographs are not about pushing to the highest technical heights, but about testing the thresholds of a particular application. Since first working with digital, shooting handheld with a D700 and realising how digital shifted thresholds compared to film, I have been operating within this space. It is as much about what you can get away with as it is about what is possible. Through this particular path of technological investigation, Micro Four Thirds has proven to be the better demonstration of where that technology has shifted what has historically been referred to as the "photographers gaze". The point is not just to explore personal, spatial, and social concerns of the recorded image, but also its technological evolution. While these images may not represent the “best” quality, they are of a quality not attainable in my own earlier investigations of this type of photography and only realistically possible for a few short years. This is not a new concept in photography, where technology informs new applications and methods.
That the work holds a technolgical premise this is one area where it is of benefit and understanding to know what is the tension point of the best possible outcome vs the unusable or "failed" photograph.
So yes as well as having conceptual concerns I also like to nerd out on the technology and tools and go through numerous camera/lens combinations in this pursuit. And why I have no real qualms presenting some of the experiments and outcomes of these investigations.
If this makes sense to you or is of any interest is of no real concern to my ongoing work, my career and my resulting bottom line. Make of it what you will.
Does that make my critique of your image wrong?
Your criticism is as usual irrelevant the bottom line is no matter what you say 1" sensors and m43 are just 1 stop apart
Pixel size is not that relevant as the images produced by millions of them that matters and sensor size plays a major roll
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2023/06/sensor-format-size-and-image-quality/
From Jim's conclusion :
The yellow highlight is a fact
The blue highlight is a matter of opinion most of the world ( 100's of millions !) think phones are good enough , others think 1" or m43 or APS or FF or MF . As it is a matter of opinion then what you think is right for
YOU and what I think is right for
ME
The red is another fact
Yes James... Thank you for highlighting what I just said -
Your claim which is nonsense is that pixel size is what matters when that is not remotely true. Jim absolutely said no such thing
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/68444027
"It is not so much the size of the sensor - but the size of the pixels which is the more important measure of IQ."
what do you think bearing in mind you claim to have owned one of the 60mp Sony bodies and 12mp m43 bodies share roughly the same pixel size . Which gives the better image quality though I am still waiting to see your samples from raw images YOU took with the camera you owned . To prove how cropping is ineffective
Or are you playing the Goldilocks delusion that only what m43 can do is all that matters.
seems to be a common thread where you seek outside assistance to verify what I have just pointed out to you.
Save the BS your "correction " of Joe's post is not a correction as he says the diagonal AOV is what is relevant if you want the same effective focal length AOV. His comparison is based on equivalence .Same diagonal AOV etc which is what was being discussed . I would not be cropping
You are comparing a 4:3 FF crop and of course changing the effective AOV ETC which has an 8% impact on the resolution of the FF camera. If a comparison was aimed in a way that had the effect of reducing m43 resolution by 8% . I am sure there would be lamentations aplenty
https://www.strollswithmydog.com/equivalence-focal-length-fnumber-diffraction/
"metrics need to be expressed in units of picture height (or diagonal where the aspect ratio is significantly different) in order to easily compare performance with images displayed at the same size; and"
https://www.edmundoptics.co.uk/knowledge-center/application-notes/imaging/resolution/
"Sensor size refers to the size of a camera sensor’s active area, specified by the sensor format size (more information on sensor format can be found in Sensors). However, the exact sensor proportions will vary depending on the aspect ratio, so the nominal sensor formats should be used only as a guideline, especially for telecentric lenses and high magnification objectives. The sensor size (H); horizontal, vertical, or diagonal; can be directly calculated from the pixel size and number of active pixels on the sensor (p)."
M43 is bigger than 1 inch and therefore better
It is just under double the area which as expected gives around a 1 stop difference . Just as the near 4x area of FF gives a 2 stop difference
- it also has better lenses (do we need an outside source to verify that one?) - no there is no magic...
just inanimate boxes and ones imagination (might need to check with someone though..)!
If the photos you post here are an example of your imagination it is rather dull to say the least . It is always fun chatting with you I will now leave the fun to you . Maybe you can dig out some of your shots from the the A7r IV you owned
