If I want to improve the "quality" of my images, and other than the fact that I own some pro oly glass, why shouldn't I buy a D750 (body $2,299 cdn, $2,899 with a 24-120 f4) instead of plunking down $2,499 cdn for the MK II
Image quality will always be better with ff.
Wrong. It is only better in theoretical extreme situations, not in most common real world samples proven time after time.
Nope.
Common real world samples with my A7 vs any M43? Except with M43 at base ISO and in very good lighting, yes, there is a visible difference, in noise, DR, tonality, etc. These differences magnify if you are taking shots at anything above base ISO, or in situations even at base ISO with high DR or where you need shadow or highlight recovery.
I talk about identical ISO values like ISO 3200 and ISO 6400 on both, identical aperture ratios, taken in low light (shutter speeds 2 seconds) , and daytime (1/1250) and then done for normal prints as for large prints (25") and even larger (40") and then ask others to rank the prints based their own opinions. There is no difference that is talked about.
If you do over 40" prints with full resolution and you pixel peep them with magnifying class instead the typical viewing distances, then you will get better sharpness out of D750, if you had the sharper lens in first place, toke care of the shutter shock and shutter speed etc.
No. You can see differences at normal print sizes. As I said, if you keep the ISO low, and DR down, you can do pretty well with M43, but anything more demanding and you have to really massage the files to get the most out of them.
Nope.
If you use over ISO 6400 and you do over 20-30" full resolution prints, then you will see a slight improvement in image quality by the amount of details.
Sigh, no you can the noise differences even at base ISO....especially in blue skies.
Nope.
If you do not hit over those limits, you will not gain any visual improvements for the image quality.
Wrong.
Disagree. If you think that you can see a difference on 1200 DPI vs 4800 DPI, then sure...
To get out the FF benefit for better IQ, you really need to go and push the camera over the limits that m4/3 can produce for same quality. And that limit is very far and high from most situations like fine art prints of 25", A3 size fine glossy fashion magazine prints, landscape up to 40-50", usual sports/event photography for digital use and magazines and news papers.
No. As I said, you can easily see the differences between the formats at normal resolutions. Whether it matters or not is another thing entirely.....
Wrong.
The image quality is "always better" with FF only in theoretical manner, but not in real world production unless you are a pixel peeper and terrified about suffering worse quality because "inferior" gear.
No, it's really better.
Nope. You can't see the difference (okay, you have the super sight that you can see difference at 1200 DPI and 4800 DPI so it is for you).
Doing real work with m4/3 and FF side by side shows there is no benefits using FF for almost never, until really hitting very heavy requirement situations. And that is like a carrying every day a second pair of shoes with you, just in case that your main pair of shoes will get broken or uncomfortable. It will eventually happen but over 99% of the time you are not benefitting from the extra weight and space consumption, and when it happens you will more likely manage to work around the problem.
Oh give me a break. There are lots of reasons that FF has advantages in some situations, just as there are lots of reasons to use M43. Being doctrinaire about this is just stupid.
Then don't be stupid.
I used FF for 2 years after using M43 for 4. I liked many things about it. I especially enjoyed the ease at which I could get many DOF effects, from shallow to deep, with many lenses.
And how does the shallow DOF be about IQ? You are moving the goalposts now.
If I did primarily portrait or people shooting, I would not even think of anything with a smaller sensor than FF, simply because it gives more latitude in this area with less cost and less effort.
Seems like you don't know about portraiture then. As time after time professionals has shown that people don't see the difference.
However, I shoot mostly very long and macro, and size is important to me, so I have chosen to give up the FF IQ advantages in DR, noise, tonal and color gradation (although the GX8 is acceptable in those two areas), and in shadow recovery, in order to have a camera with a very long lens that I can easily carry with me and a longer macro that's not the size of a brick. I'm very happy with what my M43 can do with those lenses and in those types of shooting. However, I was shooting a street public event a couple of weeks ago, and I really missed having a FF, with fast lenses for subject isolation and more leeway in lower light without noise. I'd have both systems if I could afford it, actually....
Again you are moving goalposts with shallow DOF for the IQ. They are different things.
Horses for courses. M43 is not all things to all people. FF isn't either. Dismissing either one as " M43 is good enough", "no difference in all practical situations", "better than M43 in all situations", "waste of money", "who needs shallow DOF", etc, etc, is really just plain stupid.
The problem is that you are moving goalposts by claiming that shallow DOF is the same thing as IQ.
These are complementary systems, each with strengths and weaknesses, and the OP should base his decision on what he likes to shoot and what he's getting (or not getting ) with his current system.
I didn't even mention shallow DOF, but you wanted to start to move the goalposts for that. The fact just remains, in typical requirements, m4/3 offers the IQ on par with FF.
And I repeat, if it is gone over the limits of m4/3, then FF will provide the benefits. But it is question of everyone each self that when they go over that limitation.
All the claims and reasonings for "FF is better" are like recommending D810A for someone who want to get some astrophotography shots without knowing they are limited to like 2-3 a month for couple months a year and even then they are more like anyone else average shots. If the person would have spent 100k+ € already for telescopes, labs, trips etc and does take dozens of photos per week, then it would be no sense to recommend any m4/3 gear for that task.
You are imposing your prejudices on someone else's time, energy and money for how they are going to use their system.
No, I didn't say anything like that so do not try to troll.
I don't even know the OP requirements as he doesn't state them. He doesn't say does he need to do 200" prints or does he do postage stamps. There can be IQ difference when you do 200" prints, but there will never be a IQ difference when you do postage stamps sizes.
FF cameras is like a car that max speed is 180km/h.
M4/3 cameras is like a car that max speed is 140km/h.
No, FF cameras are like a Mercedes vs a Dodge. Both will get you where you are going, but one is going to make your trip a fair bit more comfortable in difficult situations.
Failure in analogy.
Now why is the FF camera so much better than m4/3 when 99% of the time the speed requirement is way below 120km/h, being by average 60km/h and only hit over 140km/h couple times a year if even that?
Uh, no. You are always going to be more comfortable in the Mercedes, since it is designed and executed to a different standard..,,
Failure in analogy.
So specify the requirement before doing claims. Ie.
- Do you need to use ISO 51200 or over for prints over 11"?
- Do you need to crop 50% and do over 30" prints?
- Do you need to shoot black cats talking to black bats in a coal mine?
A bit hyperbolic here you think?
No, as you fail to read and comprehend what is written by moving goalposts.
I repeat so read carefully and slowly.
- If you have requirements that go over the limits of the m4/3 capabilities provide IQ, then you need something else.
- If you do not go over the limits, you will not see the difference.
So you are the hyperbolic one, as you can't understand that if you will never go over the limits, then you will never see the difference. You are claiming that you can see all the time the difference in every possible situation, what is nothing else than a hyperbole itself.
Question... have you ever actually used a FF camera?
Do you have eyes?
If you go to extreme situations, then FF is better. If you don't go to extreme situations, FF doesn't provide benefits for IQ. And then you are only lugging a heavier, larger and more expensive gear around that doesn't give any IQ benefits.
As I have said, anything above base ISO can be considered an extreme situation when it comes to the noise difference alone. Even at base ISO the noise differences are not insubstantial
ISO 3200 and ISO 6400 identically set on FF and m4/3 cameras, made larger prints (40") and most people ranked m4/3 camera better than FF. It is not my opinion that you are fight against, you are fighting against random people giving their honest opinions of the real world products. And prints were made as equal.
E-M1 II isn't better for raw shooters than existing cameras. The E-M1 II benefit is solely in the speed. And that speed is the reason to get it, and there is nothing in D750 that can offer it. There really isn't' any FF camera that can offer the same capabilities than E-M1 II.
It is tiring some to see people claiming things that ain't true in common context, and without giving the context of the special cases where it would be true.
You have twisted yourself into knots trying to prove something that is just not true. No special cases needed for the benefits of FF....just whether or not the OP needs what it has to offer, and is willing to carry the heavier kit, for his purposes.
No, you have put hyperboles, moving goalposts claiming that DOF is same as IQ, you have claimed that there is always visual difference between FF regardless of any of the final product size or subject.
You are just claiming that no matter of any situation or results, you would always be able to pick the photos that were taken with FF and what were taken with a smaller formats.
And that is your position where you have put yourself on.
While I have only stated that there are limits that after going pass it, the m4/3 can't produce the same IQ as FF can. You didn't even see that I have kept the fact all the way on the front, that there is the IQ difference once you go past m4/3 limits. You in other hand have said that there is always the difference and nothing can be done for it. So you have build a clear hyperbole, moved the goalposts and offered nothing to anyone.
I want to see how you can pick which postage stamp was taken with FF and what with an iPhone, or even when it is just a 10" print.
https://www.creativereview.co.uk/if-apple-can-why-cant-you/
It is funny to remember how people reacted when they saw the real world prints taken with iPhone, presented by Apple in their advertising.
And you are just with your attitude forgetting one of the most crucial things, people don't really care about the best IQ! The photograph is more about everything else than shallow DOF or noise. When the majority of people, who is generating the money for you, the whole photography business, view the photos, they do not really come to say "This is bad because it wasn't shot with FF".
Time after time, it is proven that FF isn't superior most of the time.
Time after time, it is found that the people who will look the photos (other than you) and enjoy from them, does not care was it shot with FF or not.
I have never heard anyone mentioning in the art gallery that specific artwork would have been better if the artist would have used a different size brush etc.
What does it matter that 1% area in the image at ISO 3200 is still showing the details as at ISO 200, but some very low contrasty details are smudged? It is just 1% minute detail!
Why does someone go and rank the photograph based 1% and rejecting the whole photograph while doing so?
Some people are nitpickers, and they would demand a refund after building a house only because the house is 0.12 degree tilted to one direction.
http://theonlinephotographer.typepa...ormat-film-we-have-the-definitive-answer.html
Remember reading that from here. And it is again just one things proving that it doesn't really matter as m4/3 cameras limitations are so high, that if you are incapable to get great results with m4/3 in most situations, you ain't going to get any better with FF.
The more outlandish you are, the more people will respond.
