Sure you do,
So whether it is directly to do with sensor size - is not entirely known. no?
Should read: As I said, DR is only one of the several metrics that constitute IQ.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
What is 4 times better?
- Thread starter ultimitsu
- Start date
Sorry to hear it's a bother for you.
It's a joy for most here....
--
Dave
Bluephotons
Veteran Member
Why bother with Full Frame when there is Medium Format?--
Bluephotons
Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now. Bob Dylan
Neither my E3 nor my 5D2 are particularly inconspicuous. They are in fact much the same size. The E-4x0 series were cute little cameras, though. Oly was on the right track there, I think.
Yet it was a lot cheaper to add a stabilized 300/4 to my 5D2 than it would have been to add a 150/2 to my E3. And I mean including what I paid for the bodies. But you meant the other way around, I know. I wish you were right, but you unfortunately aren't in the general case. The good 4/3 lenses are typically neither particularly small nor particularly cheap (to the extend you can even get them anymore :-()
The comparison was made between M4/3 and FF for cost, value convenience and image quality and you seem to want to discuss 4/3 cameras and lenses instead.
If your point is that the E3 was way too large and heavy, then I agree with you. But it probably had to be that large in order to balance well with the also too large SHG lenses. No one ever claimed that the E3 was an inconspicuous camera.
M4/3.... on the other hand... is a whole different animal.
Great Bustard
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 45,961
- Solutions
- 17
- Reaction score
- 34,046
???
The DR is independent of sensor size for equally efficient sensors, but, as I said, not all systems that have the same DR have the same IQ, as the DR simply tells the number of levels of light where detail is recorded, but not the quality of those levels.
Ah. For sure.
Great Bustard
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 45,961
- Solutions
- 17
- Reaction score
- 34,046
...a quality image. In terms of image quality, the equipment absolutely matters. In terms of a quality image, the equipment plays anywhere from no role to a major role, depending on the photo.
tjdean01
Senior Member
For a me a Micro four thirds camera is at least four times better because it's 4x smaller and I'm at least that likely to carry it with me!
Marty, for some reason I thought I was in 1022. My fault, of course and I apologize for the confusion. As for m4/3 we are not in disagreement.
It doesn't bother me, because I am getting great iq from my system camera, but if all you get is that 10%, why do You bother.KwhyChang wrote:
Sorry to hear it's a bother for you.
It's a joy for most here...
That is not amazon nor USA stock., that is a third party seller from Japan, no USA warranty, may well even be refurb
Last edited:
Lens cost, af, fps, high ISO.Bluephotons wrote:
Why bother with Full Frame when there is Medium Format?ultimitsu wrote:
Then why bother with any system camera, stick to this should do it
mferencz
Leading Member
Medium format will give you superior peformance at low iso and the details provided would be startling even compared to the D800. You chose to not go in this direction and comprimise with features you find important, even though you are well aware of these disadvantages of FF. Sound familar?
mferencz
Leading Member
by the way. What prompts a grown man to crow away on the internet how his toys are superior? It seems as if it was just yesterday, when on the playground a runny nose 3rd grader was doing the same.
Bluephotons
Veteran Member
I rarely get involve in this ethernal dicussions (other than to try to poke fun), but I always look at pictures posted by different personalities, magazines, and other respectable entities like: " the pictures of the year" "most impactacting photos of the century" " photos that made history" etc and I almost never find photos with milky shallow depth of field, high dinamic range, super sharp pixels, CA free, perfect white balance, so what give? Where were the perfect cameras? They say that every picture tells a story, hold on one minute while I pull my Phase one off my car's trunk. ( I wanted to be like A Adams but I did not own a mule) :-(
--
Bluephotons
Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now. Bob Dylan
--
Bluephotons
Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now. Bob Dylan
Last edited:
no it doesnt.
Mf is a different breed of cameras, the are only meant for very specific shooting conditions. every thing else, from fuji jz100 to D800, attempt to cater for a wide range of photography - sunlight or low light, still subject or moving subject.
You remark is analogous to someone in a sports car discussion saying why stop at at Veyron, why not get a F1.
i dont get it either, especially when someone shows up with the camera version of small man syndrome.
jim stirling
Veteran Member
I specifiably used the RAW test shots from the Focus Numeriqe website as they seem to have the most consistent exposure settings between cameras . I do not have an E-M5 { I am holding out for full FT support, for the lovely 50-200 SWD i recently got} though I do have the GH3 which seems to score almost identically to it. I also have the D800. So i clearly see the advantages and disadvantages of each system , with the combination of mFT and FF ticking all the boxes for me.
The base ISO for the D800 is 100 and using the DXO ISO method puts the E-M5 200 ISO at 107 while it measures the D800 at 74 so not much in it . The only actions taken with both files is to download from Focus Numerique , open in ACR , turn off all NR , minimal default sharpening , re sized to the same dimensions. The first image show the image detail difference.The second is to show the difference in shadow noise even at base ISO .
I am curious why you seem to be suggesting ""huge NR or sharpening"" { they had neither } and just how doing either one would result in the same appearance . NR even the very best is always at the expense of fine detail, whereas sharpening especially ""huge " sharpening typically does the opposite.
Base ISO
Loading…
www.europe-nikon.com
The RAW files are freely available. From the Focus Numerique website. I have certainly not claimed anything is 4x better { assuming we had a an agreed on criteria on which to base the "better" calculation}. Perhaps you could shed a light on how any one could seriously expect a sensor that is almost one quarter the size to match what is considered by all professional review sites and DXO sensor testing to be the best sensor ever put in a DSLR.
DPreview D800 review conclusions
- Class-leading image resolution at 36.3 MP (with the D800E offering slightly superior resolution)
- Outstanding high ISO performance in both JPEG and Raw files
- Wide dynamic range Raw files
- Extremely high resolution
- Excellent image quality
- Excellent dynamic range
- Surprising high ISO performance
"On the resolution front, the Nikon D800 delivers images with a truly stunning amount of detail,"
"Raw dynamic range, tonality etc. are also excellent; just what you'd expect from a top-of-the-line camera in 2012."
And just for fun here is the DXO comparison between the D800 , E-M5 and your current camera the E-30.
Loading…
www.dxomark.com
Last edited:
KenBalbari
Forum Enthusiast
All I know is this thread must be 4x better than one with only 30 replies.
Martin.au
Forum Pro
That would be anyone who challenges your poorly framed arguments and generalisations, yeah?
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum