E-M1 vs. A7II Thoughts

Like you, I put to a similar comparison test the E-M1 and the A7II in February 2016 and, all in all, my conclusions were about the same as yours.

Besides, having owned the E-M1 for nearly a year, I can add that I did not find this camera very reliable and, to me, its build quality left much to be desired (but this is no news),  for I ended up selling it alongwith the relevant MFT lenses. Am now waiting for the E-M1 Mk II, though - to be honest - I do not place much faith in Olympus anymore.

Thanks for posting your thread and best regards,

Joseph

• I hated how when reviewing an image and placing your eye to the EVF the camera exits playback mode. Perhaps there is a setting I missed for this.

On this, I certainly agree. When I went from Nikon to EM1, I couldn't understand why the EM1 was set up that way. And the reverse is true-when previewing an image in the EVF, when you move your eye away, it should display the image on the screen for the remainder of the preview period but instead switches to live view. There should be an option to do it this way.

That said, I think the point of M4/3 is size and weight-not just the camera body but the body and lens together. A FF is almost always going to produce "better" images, all things being equal. As you suggest, perhaps the new EM1 will close the gap  bit.

Jacques Cornell wrote:

olyflyer wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

The larger sensor's DR advantage applies only with moving subjects.

That's a bit of a simplification.... a joke which shows that you don't know what you are talking about. DR advantages are ALWAYS advantages. Period.

That's a bit of a simplification... a joke which shows that you don't know what you are talking about.

DR advantages are ALWAYS advantages. Period. If you don't see that then you really don't know what you are talking about.

I get more DR from a 5-frame bracket with MFT than you get from a single capture with a 35mm sensor.

Did I say anything else? I never claimed this NOT being the case, but to claim that "DR advantage applies only with moving subjects" is simply nonsense.

Results are results. The infinitesimally small amount of additional work I have to do to get these results 1) is no burden at all, and 2) saves me thousands of dollars and several pounds of weight by letting me use a smaller, cheaper kit.

Fine. It may suit YOUR needs but that's all. To claim a generic statement based on YOUR needs is really a simplification. Yes, perhaps you save money but is that the goal? Yes, you save weight, but you also offer something for that saving and you pay the price of the saving elsewhere. Never the less, of course, if it suits your needs... fine.

If you need to take 5 images and create pseudo DR through PP (or in camera) just to get similar DR to a large sensor camera then apart from wasting time you waste memory and need to have a pretty complex work flow and special software.

Complex, ha! Select, hit control-H, wait 60 seconds, done. If that's too much work for you, I suggest you just shoot JPEGs and do no post.

Compared to an image in a fraction of a second, yes 60 seconds is EXTREMELY long time. Honestly, I thought it was faster than that.

"Special" software? Really? You consider Lightroom "special"? It's what 90% of pros and enthusiasts use.

Stitching images is not the same as NOT having to do that to get the same result. It is extra work, regardless how easy you regard it to do or what software you are using. Also remember that most people actually don't use any commercial software but stick to the one coming free of charge and most of those who do use commercial software don't use LR. For those people it is indeed a special software, but of course, LR is not only one which can create HDR and stitch images. Personally I use Adobe CS5 and Nikon Capture NX2, both commercial and CS5 can manage stitching pretty well. Yes, I know they are old but I am very happy with them and they work fine with my cameras and scanners together.

If you take those images hand held then you will definitely not get the same quality as you would from a single image, no matter what kind of IBIS you are using.

Wrong. There is no loss of sharpness or detail from merging an exposure bracket.

Of course there is loss of detail, that is the case every time you have the slightest movement between one and another image, even if you have the worlds most magical IBIS or use the sturdiest tripod. Try a landscape or a macro image and you will (should) see that even in a seemingly perfect, windless day leaves are moving, air is vibrating, birds or insects turn up from nowhere and so on. You need to be in 100% control of the environment to avoid risks for issues.

Now, imagine having to do that for a few hundred images and you should see the advantages of having a camera with larger sensor and more DR. You can never really get the same kind of image by stacking images compared to a single image. HDR is not the same as sensor DR.

Wrong again. See above.

Yes, see above. Especially where you said it takes 60 seconds per image. Now, 100 times 60 seconds is 6000 seconds and that is about 1 hour and 40 minutes. I call that an awful lot of time compared to no time.

You know, I might have been willing to concede a minor point, but your attitude is so rude and hostile that I won't give you the satisfaction.

My attitude is neither rude nor hostile. On the other hand, you made a pretty blanket statement saying that "DR advantage applies only with moving subjects" which is totally wrong and you should know that. It is very strange that you claim to be a professional photographer with loads of experience, even teaching photography, yet you make this statement.

A single image with more DR is always better than having to take 5 images in a row and stitch those, even if you have the best camera ever produced on this earth. More sensor based DR can NEVER be a disadvantage. That's all I am saying, yet you interpreted that as something rude and hostile.

Jacques Cornell wrote:

Exposure bracketing and stitching do not eliminate the advantages of larger sensors.

Amen to that. Quite a different statement compared to "DR advantage applies only with moving subjects."

But they expand my toolbox sufficiently that I can accomplish what I want to just as well with MFT most of the time with minimal effort. YMMV.

Again, that's totally different to what you have said before.

Also remember that nothing prevents a user of a larger sensor camera with more sensor DR to use exposure bracketing and HDR if he/she wishes to do so.

olyflyer wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

olyflyer wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

The larger sensor's DR advantage applies only with moving subjects.

That's a bit of a simplification.... a joke which shows that you don't know what you are talking about. DR advantages are ALWAYS advantages. Period.

That's a bit of a simplification... a joke which shows that you don't know what you are talking about.

DR advantages are ALWAYS advantages. Period. If you don't see that then you really don't know what you are talking about.

I get more DR from a 5-frame bracket with MFT than you get from a single capture with a 35mm sensor.

Did I say anything else? I never claimed this NOT being the case, but to claim that "DR advantage applies only with moving subjects" is simply nonsense.

Results are results. The infinitesimally small amount of additional work I have to do to get these results 1) is no burden at all, and 2) saves me thousands of dollars and several pounds of weight by letting me use a smaller, cheaper kit.

Fine. It may suit YOUR needs but that's all. To claim a generic statement based on YOUR needs is really a simplification. Yes, perhaps you save money but is that the goal? Yes, you save weight, but you also offer something for that saving and you pay the price of the saving elsewhere. Never the less, of course, if it suits your needs... fine.

If you need to take 5 images and create pseudo DR through PP (or in camera) just to get similar DR to a large sensor camera then apart from wasting time you waste memory and need to have a pretty complex work flow and special software.

Complex, ha! Select, hit control-H, wait 60 seconds, done. If that's too much work for you, I suggest you just shoot JPEGs and do no post.

Compared to an image in a fraction of a second, yes 60 seconds is EXTREMELY long time. Honestly, I thought it was faster than that.

"Special" software? Really? You consider Lightroom "special"? It's what 90% of pros and enthusiasts use.

Stitching images is not the same as NOT having to do that to get the same result. It is extra work, regardless how easy you regard it to do or what software you are using. Also remember that most people actually don't use any commercial software but stick to the one coming free of charge and most of those who do use commercial software don't use LR. For those people it is indeed a special software, but of course, LR is not only one which can create HDR and stitch images. Personally I use Adobe CS5 and Nikon Capture NX2, both commercial and CS5 can manage stitching pretty well. Yes, I know they are old but I am very happy with them and they work fine with my cameras and scanners together.

If you take those images hand held then you will definitely not get the same quality as you would from a single image, no matter what kind of IBIS you are using.

Wrong. There is no loss of sharpness or detail from merging an exposure bracket.

Of course there is loss of detail, that is the case every time you have the slightest movement between one and another image, even if you have the worlds most magical IBIS or use the sturdiest tripod. Try a landscape or a macro image and you will (should) see that even in a seemingly perfect, windless day leaves are moving, air is vibrating, birds or insects turn up from nowhere and so on. You need to be in 100% control of the environment to avoid risks for issues.

Now, imagine having to do that for a few hundred images and you should see the advantages of having a camera with larger sensor and more DR. You can never really get the same kind of image by stacking images compared to a single image. HDR is not the same as sensor DR.

Wrong again. See above.

Yes, see above. Especially where you said it takes 60 seconds per image. Now, 100 times 60 seconds is 6000 seconds and that is about 1 hour and 40 minutes. I call that an awful lot of time compared to no time.

You know, I might have been willing to concede a minor point, but your attitude is so rude and hostile that I won't give you the satisfaction.

My attitude is neither rude nor hostile. On the other hand, you made a pretty blanket statement saying that "DR advantage applies only with moving subjects" which is totally wrong and you should know that. It is very strange that you claim to be a professional photographer with loads of experience, even teaching photography, yet you make this statement.

A single image with more DR is always better than having to take 5 images in a row and stitch those, even if you have the best camera ever produced on this earth.

No, it's not. You act as if there is no cost associated with your "better" solution. There is no good reason why I should sink thousands of dollars and carry a larger heavier kit when I can achieve results that are just as good with a minimum of effort. You keep saying the same old boring thing - "better is always better" - as if it's some kind of self-evident universal truth. If you can't see the difference, and the "better" solution carries higher costs, it's not better. Say it a million times, you'll never convince me to switch. because I've already weighed the compromises and found MFT the superior solution for me.

More sensor based DR can NEVER be a disadvantage. That's all I am saying, yet you interpreted that as something rude and hostile.

Whatever. My point was simply that you often can accomplish the same things with MFT as with larger sensors, and because of this the latter offer no benefit to me with static subjects. I made it clear that I was speaking from my experience, and I illustrated the applicable conditions and methods. My intention was to let folks know that larger sensors are often unnecessary to realize the benefits of greater rez and DR. Your niggling over semantics is boring. You can go back to insisting that larger sensors are always better for everybody. Heard it a million times in this forum. Snore.

Jacques Cornell wrote:

olyflyer wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

olyflyer wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

The larger sensor's DR advantage applies only with moving subjects.

That's a bit of a simplification.... a joke which shows that you don't know what you are talking about. DR advantages are ALWAYS advantages. Period.

That's a bit of a simplification... a joke which shows that you don't know what you are talking about.

DR advantages are ALWAYS advantages. Period. If you don't see that then you really don't know what you are talking about.

I get more DR from a 5-frame bracket with MFT than you get from a single capture with a 35mm sensor.

Did I say anything else? I never claimed this NOT being the case, but to claim that "DR advantage applies only with moving subjects" is simply nonsense.

Results are results. The infinitesimally small amount of additional work I have to do to get these results 1) is no burden at all, and 2) saves me thousands of dollars and several pounds of weight by letting me use a smaller, cheaper kit.

Fine. It may suit YOUR needs but that's all. To claim a generic statement based on YOUR needs is really a simplification. Yes, perhaps you save money but is that the goal? Yes, you save weight, but you also offer something for that saving and you pay the price of the saving elsewhere. Never the less, of course, if it suits your needs... fine.

If you need to take 5 images and create pseudo DR through PP (or in camera) just to get similar DR to a large sensor camera then apart from wasting time you waste memory and need to have a pretty complex work flow and special software.

Complex, ha! Select, hit control-H, wait 60 seconds, done. If that's too much work for you, I suggest you just shoot JPEGs and do no post.

Compared to an image in a fraction of a second, yes 60 seconds is EXTREMELY long time. Honestly, I thought it was faster than that.

"Special" software? Really? You consider Lightroom "special"? It's what 90% of pros and enthusiasts use.

Stitching images is not the same as NOT having to do that to get the same result. It is extra work, regardless how easy you regard it to do or what software you are using. Also remember that most people actually don't use any commercial software but stick to the one coming free of charge and most of those who do use commercial software don't use LR. For those people it is indeed a special software, but of course, LR is not only one which can create HDR and stitch images. Personally I use Adobe CS5 and Nikon Capture NX2, both commercial and CS5 can manage stitching pretty well. Yes, I know they are old but I am very happy with them and they work fine with my cameras and scanners together.

If you take those images hand held then you will definitely not get the same quality as you would from a single image, no matter what kind of IBIS you are using.

Wrong. There is no loss of sharpness or detail from merging an exposure bracket.

Of course there is loss of detail, that is the case every time you have the slightest movement between one and another image, even if you have the worlds most magical IBIS or use the sturdiest tripod. Try a landscape or a macro image and you will (should) see that even in a seemingly perfect, windless day leaves are moving, air is vibrating, birds or insects turn up from nowhere and so on. You need to be in 100% control of the environment to avoid risks for issues.

Now, imagine having to do that for a few hundred images and you should see the advantages of having a camera with larger sensor and more DR. You can never really get the same kind of image by stacking images compared to a single image. HDR is not the same as sensor DR.

Wrong again. See above.

Yes, see above. Especially where you said it takes 60 seconds per image. Now, 100 times 60 seconds is 6000 seconds and that is about 1 hour and 40 minutes. I call that an awful lot of time compared to no time.

You know, I might have been willing to concede a minor point, but your attitude is so rude and hostile that I won't give you the satisfaction.

My attitude is neither rude nor hostile. On the other hand, you made a pretty blanket statement saying that "DR advantage applies only with moving subjects" which is totally wrong and you should know that. It is very strange that you claim to be a professional photographer with loads of experience, even teaching photography, yet you make this statement.

A single image with more DR is always better than having to take 5 images in a row and stitch those, even if you have the best camera ever produced on this earth.

No, it's not. You act as if there is no cost associated with your "better" solution. There is no good reason why I should sink thousands of dollars and carry a larger heavier kit when I can achieve results that are just as good with a minimum of effort. You keep saying the same old boring thing - "better is always better" - as if it's some kind of self-evident universal truth. If you can't see the difference, and the "better" solution carries higher costs, it's not better. Say it a million times, you'll never convince me to switch. because I've already weighed the compromises and found MFT the superior solution for me.

As I already said, what suits YOUR needs is fine and I am not questioning that.

More sensor based DR can NEVER be a disadvantage. That's all I am saying, yet you interpreted that as something rude and hostile.

Whatever. My point was simply that you often can accomplish the same things with MFT as with larger sensors, and because of this the latter offer no benefit to me with static subjects. I made it clear that I was speaking from my experience, and I illustrated the applicable conditions and methods. My intention was to let folks know that larger sensors are often unnecessary to realize the benefits of greater rez and DR. Your niggling over semantics is boring. You can go back to insisting that larger sensors are always better for everybody. Heard it a million times in this forum. Snore.

I NEVER insisted that larger sensors are better for everyone and everyone should have one, please don't twist my words, that is really rude.  I said that more DR is ALWAYS an advantage, which is pretty different from your (mis)interpretation. If you need more DR, want it or can afford it is a totally different subject. For most people a cell phone is more than enough, but even so, there is no question about the fact that if that cell phone could produce the same DR as a larger sensor can it would be even better than those existing today and if your camera could get the same DR as it can get through the 5 frame HDR. it would be even better. Wouldn't it? After all, the target is not exposure bracketing but to take the actual image. Isn't it?

olyflyer wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

olyflyer wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

olyflyer wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

The larger sensor's DR advantage applies only with moving subjects.

That's a bit of a simplification.... a joke which shows that you don't know what you are talking about. DR advantages are ALWAYS advantages. Period.

That's a bit of a simplification... a joke which shows that you don't know what you are talking about.

DR advantages are ALWAYS advantages. Period. If you don't see that then you really don't know what you are talking about.

I get more DR from a 5-frame bracket with MFT than you get from a single capture with a 35mm sensor.

Did I say anything else? I never claimed this NOT being the case, but to claim that "DR advantage applies only with moving subjects" is simply nonsense.

Results are results. The infinitesimally small amount of additional work I have to do to get these results 1) is no burden at all, and 2) saves me thousands of dollars and several pounds of weight by letting me use a smaller, cheaper kit.

Fine. It may suit YOUR needs but that's all. To claim a generic statement based on YOUR needs is really a simplification. Yes, perhaps you save money but is that the goal? Yes, you save weight, but you also offer something for that saving and you pay the price of the saving elsewhere. Never the less, of course, if it suits your needs... fine.

If you need to take 5 images and create pseudo DR through PP (or in camera) just to get similar DR to a large sensor camera then apart from wasting time you waste memory and need to have a pretty complex work flow and special software.

Complex, ha! Select, hit control-H, wait 60 seconds, done. If that's too much work for you, I suggest you just shoot JPEGs and do no post.

Compared to an image in a fraction of a second, yes 60 seconds is EXTREMELY long time. Honestly, I thought it was faster than that.

"Special" software? Really? You consider Lightroom "special"? It's what 90% of pros and enthusiasts use.

Stitching images is not the same as NOT having to do that to get the same result. It is extra work, regardless how easy you regard it to do or what software you are using. Also remember that most people actually don't use any commercial software but stick to the one coming free of charge and most of those who do use commercial software don't use LR. For those people it is indeed a special software, but of course, LR is not only one which can create HDR and stitch images. Personally I use Adobe CS5 and Nikon Capture NX2, both commercial and CS5 can manage stitching pretty well. Yes, I know they are old but I am very happy with them and they work fine with my cameras and scanners together.

If you take those images hand held then you will definitely not get the same quality as you would from a single image, no matter what kind of IBIS you are using.

Wrong. There is no loss of sharpness or detail from merging an exposure bracket.

Of course there is loss of detail, that is the case every time you have the slightest movement between one and another image, even if you have the worlds most magical IBIS or use the sturdiest tripod. Try a landscape or a macro image and you will (should) see that even in a seemingly perfect, windless day leaves are moving, air is vibrating, birds or insects turn up from nowhere and so on. You need to be in 100% control of the environment to avoid risks for issues.

Now, imagine having to do that for a few hundred images and you should see the advantages of having a camera with larger sensor and more DR. You can never really get the same kind of image by stacking images compared to a single image. HDR is not the same as sensor DR.

Wrong again. See above.

Yes, see above. Especially where you said it takes 60 seconds per image. Now, 100 times 60 seconds is 6000 seconds and that is about 1 hour and 40 minutes. I call that an awful lot of time compared to no time.

You know, I might have been willing to concede a minor point, but your attitude is so rude and hostile that I won't give you the satisfaction.

My attitude is neither rude nor hostile. On the other hand, you made a pretty blanket statement saying that "DR advantage applies only with moving subjects" which is totally wrong and you should know that. It is very strange that you claim to be a professional photographer with loads of experience, even teaching photography, yet you make this statement.

A single image with more DR is always better than having to take 5 images in a row and stitch those, even if you have the best camera ever produced on this earth.

No, it's not. You act as if there is no cost associated with your "better" solution. There is no good reason why I should sink thousands of dollars and carry a larger heavier kit when I can achieve results that are just as good with a minimum of effort. You keep saying the same old boring thing - "better is always better" - as if it's some kind of self-evident universal truth. If you can't see the difference, and the "better" solution carries higher costs, it's not better. Say it a million times, you'll never convince me to switch. because I've already weighed the compromises and found MFT the superior solution for me.

As I already said, what suits YOUR needs is fine and I am not questioning that.

More sensor based DR can NEVER be a disadvantage. That's all I am saying, yet you interpreted that as something rude and hostile.

Whatever. My point was simply that you often can accomplish the same things with MFT as with larger sensors, and because of this the latter offer no benefit to me with static subjects. I made it clear that I was speaking from my experience, and I illustrated the applicable conditions and methods. My intention was to let folks know that larger sensors are often unnecessary to realize the benefits of greater rez and DR. Your niggling over semantics is boring. You can go back to insisting that larger sensors are always better for everybody. Heard it a million times in this forum. Snore.

I NEVER insisted that larger sensors are better for everyone and everyone should have one, please don't twist my words, that is really rude. I said that more DR is ALWAYS an advantage, which is pretty different from your (mis)interpretation. If you need more DR, want it or can afford it is a totally different subject. For most people a cell phone is more than enough, but even so, there is no question about the fact that if that cell phone could produce the same DR as a larger sensor can it would be even better than those existing today and if your camera could get the same DR as it can get through the 5 frame HDR. it would be even better. Wouldn't it? After all, the target is not exposure bracketing but to take the actual image. Isn't it?

Funny how every time I post about ways that MFT can be used to accomplish professional caliber work, someone here pipes up here to insist that it's "not enough" or "not the best" and "more is better". The negativity is boring. Booooooooring boring boring.

Snore. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Jacques Cornell wrote:

olyflyer wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

olyflyer wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

olyflyer wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

The larger sensor's DR advantage applies only with moving subjects.

That's a bit of a simplification.... a joke which shows that you don't know what you are talking about. DR advantages are ALWAYS advantages. Period.

That's a bit of a simplification... a joke which shows that you don't know what you are talking about.

DR advantages are ALWAYS advantages. Period. If you don't see that then you really don't know what you are talking about.

I get more DR from a 5-frame bracket with MFT than you get from a single capture with a 35mm sensor.

Did I say anything else? I never claimed this NOT being the case, but to claim that "DR advantage applies only with moving subjects" is simply nonsense.

Results are results. The infinitesimally small amount of additional work I have to do to get these results 1) is no burden at all, and 2) saves me thousands of dollars and several pounds of weight by letting me use a smaller, cheaper kit.

Fine. It may suit YOUR needs but that's all. To claim a generic statement based on YOUR needs is really a simplification. Yes, perhaps you save money but is that the goal? Yes, you save weight, but you also offer something for that saving and you pay the price of the saving elsewhere. Never the less, of course, if it suits your needs... fine.

If you need to take 5 images and create pseudo DR through PP (or in camera) just to get similar DR to a large sensor camera then apart from wasting time you waste memory and need to have a pretty complex work flow and special software.

Complex, ha! Select, hit control-H, wait 60 seconds, done. If that's too much work for you, I suggest you just shoot JPEGs and do no post.

Compared to an image in a fraction of a second, yes 60 seconds is EXTREMELY long time. Honestly, I thought it was faster than that.

"Special" software? Really? You consider Lightroom "special"? It's what 90% of pros and enthusiasts use.

Stitching images is not the same as NOT having to do that to get the same result. It is extra work, regardless how easy you regard it to do or what software you are using. Also remember that most people actually don't use any commercial software but stick to the one coming free of charge and most of those who do use commercial software don't use LR. For those people it is indeed a special software, but of course, LR is not only one which can create HDR and stitch images. Personally I use Adobe CS5 and Nikon Capture NX2, both commercial and CS5 can manage stitching pretty well. Yes, I know they are old but I am very happy with them and they work fine with my cameras and scanners together.

If you take those images hand held then you will definitely not get the same quality as you would from a single image, no matter what kind of IBIS you are using.

Wrong. There is no loss of sharpness or detail from merging an exposure bracket.

Of course there is loss of detail, that is the case every time you have the slightest movement between one and another image, even if you have the worlds most magical IBIS or use the sturdiest tripod. Try a landscape or a macro image and you will (should) see that even in a seemingly perfect, windless day leaves are moving, air is vibrating, birds or insects turn up from nowhere and so on. You need to be in 100% control of the environment to avoid risks for issues.

Now, imagine having to do that for a few hundred images and you should see the advantages of having a camera with larger sensor and more DR. You can never really get the same kind of image by stacking images compared to a single image. HDR is not the same as sensor DR.

Wrong again. See above.

Yes, see above. Especially where you said it takes 60 seconds per image. Now, 100 times 60 seconds is 6000 seconds and that is about 1 hour and 40 minutes. I call that an awful lot of time compared to no time.

You know, I might have been willing to concede a minor point, but your attitude is so rude and hostile that I won't give you the satisfaction.

My attitude is neither rude nor hostile. On the other hand, you made a pretty blanket statement saying that "DR advantage applies only with moving subjects" which is totally wrong and you should know that. It is very strange that you claim to be a professional photographer with loads of experience, even teaching photography, yet you make this statement.

A single image with more DR is always better than having to take 5 images in a row and stitch those, even if you have the best camera ever produced on this earth.

No, it's not. You act as if there is no cost associated with your "better" solution. There is no good reason why I should sink thousands of dollars and carry a larger heavier kit when I can achieve results that are just as good with a minimum of effort. You keep saying the same old boring thing - "better is always better" - as if it's some kind of self-evident universal truth. If you can't see the difference, and the "better" solution carries higher costs, it's not better. Say it a million times, you'll never convince me to switch. because I've already weighed the compromises and found MFT the superior solution for me.

As I already said, what suits YOUR needs is fine and I am not questioning that.

More sensor based DR can NEVER be a disadvantage. That's all I am saying, yet you interpreted that as something rude and hostile.

Whatever. My point was simply that you often can accomplish the same things with MFT as with larger sensors, and because of this the latter offer no benefit to me with static subjects. I made it clear that I was speaking from my experience, and I illustrated the applicable conditions and methods. My intention was to let folks know that larger sensors are often unnecessary to realize the benefits of greater rez and DR. Your niggling over semantics is boring. You can go back to insisting that larger sensors are always better for everybody. Heard it a million times in this forum. Snore.

I NEVER insisted that larger sensors are better for everyone and everyone should have one, please don't twist my words, that is really rude. I said that more DR is ALWAYS an advantage, which is pretty different from your (mis)interpretation. If you need more DR, want it or can afford it is a totally different subject. For most people a cell phone is more than enough, but even so, there is no question about the fact that if that cell phone could produce the same DR as a larger sensor can it would be even better than those existing today and if your camera could get the same DR as it can get through the 5 frame HDR. it would be even better. Wouldn't it? After all, the target is not exposure bracketing but to take the actual image. Isn't it?

Funny how every time I post about ways that MFT can be used to accomplish professional caliber work, someone here pipes up here to insist that it's "not enough" or "not the best" and "more is better". The negativity is boring. Booooooooring boring boring.

Snore. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

You seem to have some kind of a problem or agenda. I never said it is not enough to accomplish professional calibre work, did I? Again, READ and UNDERSTAND my words, and stop misinterpreting what I am writing. Facts are not negativity. Facts are facts, boring or not. As long as you get paid for what you do, who cares about which camera you use? I don't think your clients ask you "Which camera are you using"? and they definitely don't say "Oh, I see, It's an Olympus, then I don't want to buy your work." They look at the pictures, if good they don't care if you have used a cell phone or a Hassy.

Fact is also that I am seriously considering dumping my nice Nikon FF kit in favour of the Oly MFT system, in spite of the DR disadvantages and smaller sensor. So you can relax. Never the less, fact is fact, having more DR is ALWAYS an advantage, not only with moving subjects. Also a fact that Olympus and every other manufacturer managed to improve and increase the DR in their newer cameras over time, so my hope is that the next gen Oly MFT will be even better. I don't care about HDR, so that feature I can live without.

Jan Itor wrote:

MatsP wrote:

My conclusion from your comparison is that the EM-1 is superior from most aspects except for resolution and high ISO performance. That's an amazingly good result, remembering that you compare a 16 MP and a 42 MP camera. The only advantages of the A7II are directly related to the sensor resolution and size and not much else. The negative things you list seems to me being mostly related to only a short experience of the EM-1 which of course is very understandable. It takes some time to learn how to set and use an Olympus camera. What many refer to as a complicated menu reflects that the possibilities to individual settings are enormous and it's easy to get wrong if you don't take your time diving into it. Have fun!

Well the Sony 42 Mpix sensor is the best sensor out there

That honor probably belongs to the sensor in the Pentax 645Z.

I which I could have it in my Nikon

As for m43 (and I have six m43 cameras) the sensors are slipping behind

Actually, MFT has the per-area equivalent of 80MP on a 35mm sensor, so in a sense the larger sensors are just catching up.