Latest m43 vs APSC

[TacticDesigns]

For any given area the "best of class" sensor for the larger area will always outperform the smaller area.
But there is significant overlap in the performances as you can see in the following two charts.

Low Light ISO versus Area

(Yes, I'm aware that the data points for two cameras are way off; I'm looking into that )

Whoa... this is way more technical than my head can handle on a Friday. ...

Is it really Friday?

Higher is better and to the right is larger.
Clearly there are some smaller sensors that outperform certain larger ones.
But as a rule, if you look at the best cameras, the larger the sensor the better the performance.

--
Bill ( Your trusted source for independent sensor data at PhotonsToPhotos )

Bill,

Nice chart.

What cameras are these? And what is the range in year released?

If we view this chart on your site . . . can you hover over a point to see what camera it is?

DXOmark has that on their site.

You can select which brands, sensor sizes and years to display.

And when you hover over a point, it tells you what camera that point is.

Loading…

www.dxomark.com

Take care & Happy Shooting!


--
My Personal Flickr Favs . . .

My Favs

Some of my personal favourites from over the years . . .

www.flickr.com

[FL][RP][LS]

 

[bclaff]

For any given area the "best of class" sensor for the larger area will always outperform the smaller area.
But there is significant overlap in the performances as you can see in the following two charts.

Low Light ISO versus Area

(Yes, I'm aware that the data points for two cameras are way off; I'm looking into that )

Whoa... this is way more technical than my head can handle on a Friday. ...

Is it really Friday?

Higher is better and to the right is larger.
Clearly there are some smaller sensors that outperform certain larger ones.
But as a rule, if you look at the best cameras, the larger the sensor the better the performance.

Bill,

Nice chart.

What cameras are these? And what is the range in year released?

If we view this chart on your site . . . can you hover over a point to see what camera it is?

Yes but I don't show year released.

DXOmark has that on their site.

You can select which brands, sensor sizes and years to display.

And when you hover over a point, it tells you what camera that point is.

https://www.dxomark.com/cameras/bra...ewMode=graph&xDataType=year&yDataType=rankLln

But the DxOMark data are not organized by sensor size; which is the point of my scatter charts.

--
Bill ( Your trusted source for independent sensor data at PhotonsToPhotos )

 

[TacticDesigns]

For any given area the "best of class" sensor for the larger area will always outperform the smaller area.
But there is significant overlap in the performances as you can see in the following two charts.

Low Light ISO versus Area

(Yes, I'm aware that the data points for two cameras are way off; I'm looking into that )

Whoa... this is way more technical than my head can handle on a Friday. ...

Is it really Friday?

Higher is better and to the right is larger.
Clearly there are some smaller sensors that outperform certain larger ones.
But as a rule, if you look at the best cameras, the larger the sensor the better the performance.

Bill,

Nice chart.

What cameras are these? And what is the range in year released?

If we view this chart on your site . . . can you hover over a point to see what camera it is?

Yes but I don't show year released.

What is the link to this chart on your site?

DXOmark has that on their site.

You can select which brands, sensor sizes and years to display.

And when you hover over a point, it tells you what camera that point is.

https://www.dxomark.com/cameras/bra...ewMode=graph&xDataType=year&yDataType=rankLln

But the DxOMark data are not organized by sensor size; which is the point of my scatter charts.

+1

No. The chart does not give you the chance to separate out the m4/3 from the DX from the FX.

But if you click on the chart . . . all the points at the top are FX. The ones in the middle are DX. And the ones at the bottom are m4/3.

Take care & Happy Shooting!

--
Bill ( Your trusted source for independent sensor data at PhotonsToPhotos )

--
My Personal Flickr Favs . . .

My Favs

Some of my personal favourites from over the years . . .

www.flickr.com

[FL][RP][LS]

 

[bclaff]

...

What is the link to this chart on your site?

The links were under the images but I guess that was too subtle

Here the first chart. And here's the second chart.

 

[TacticDesigns]

I have yet to see any evidence that the two formats offer any significant practical difference in a real world situation. I'm certain that the measurbating differences are real, but am less certain of their practical differences.

 

[TacticDesigns]

...

What is the link to this chart on your site?

The links were under the images but I guess that was too subtle

+ it didn't move over to the replies.

I see the links in your original post, but the replies to it, the links don't seem to work. At least not in my browser.

Here the first chart. And here's the second chart.

Ok. This is as I thought.

You have a Sony A850 up there. The Panasonic GH4 is about the same level of performance according to your chart.

But the Sony A850 was released in 2009, where as the Panasonic GH4 was released in 2014.

So for those 2 models, you could have been shooting for 5 years and getting the high iso / low light performance of the Panasonic GH4, but for the 5 years before the GH4 was released.

Take care & Happy Shooting!

 

[bclaff]

...

What is the link to this chart on your site?

The links were under the images but I guess that was too subtle

+ it didn't move over to the replies.

I see the links in your original post, but the replies to it, the links don't seem to work. At least not in my browser.

Here the first chart. And here's the second chart.

Ok. This is as I thought.

You have a Sony A850 up there. The Panasonic GH4 is about the same level of performance according to your chart.

But the Sony A850 was released in 2009, where as the Panasonic GH4 was released in 2014.

So for those 2 models, you could have been shooting for 5 years and getting the high iso / low light performance of the Panasonic GH4, but for the 5 years before the GH4 was released.

Yeah, I just think the chart puts into context that fact that you can come up with cameras, even cameras from the same time period, that seem to contradict the statement that large area is always better.
I imagine that when you come up with such pairs that the cost of the cameras might be quite different, eg. expensive m43 versus inexpensive APS-C.

 

[Easy Rider]

I have yet to see any evidence that the two formats offer any significant practical difference in a real world situation. I'm certain that the measurbating differences are real, but am less certain of their practical differences.

 

[TacticDesigns]

...

What is the link to this chart on your site?

The links were under the images but I guess that was too subtle

+ it didn't move over to the replies.

I see the links in your original post, but the replies to it, the links don't seem to work. At least not in my browser.

Here the first chart. And here's the second chart.

Ok. This is as I thought.

You have a Sony A850 up there. The Panasonic GH4 is about the same level of performance according to your chart.

But the Sony A850 was released in 2009, where as the Panasonic GH4 was released in 2014.

So for those 2 models, you could have been shooting for 5 years and getting the high iso / low light performance of the Panasonic GH4, but for the 5 years before the GH4 was released.

Yeah, I just think the chart puts into context that fact that you can come up with cameras, even cameras from the same time period, that seem to contradict the statement that large area is always better.

+1

Which is why I think your charts and this site's studio comparison help a lot!

I imagine that when you come up with such pairs that the cost of the cameras might be quite different, eg. expensive m43 versus inexpensive APS-C.

And add to that the intended use of the camera, often bigger is not better.

I currently carry a point-and-shoot around on vacation. Maybe sometimes my APS-C. But very, rarely my Full Frame.

But that's me.

That is why I keep looking at m4/3 or . . . lately the Canon EOS M5 / M6.

Small and potent. That is what I am currently looking for.

Take care & Happy Shooting!

 

[MShot]

Shooting side by side with friends who have Canon and SONY ASP-C cameras, I do not see enough difference in results between M43 and ASP-C to migrate away from M43. There is a vast space where the two formats overlap in image quality. Its only at the edge of the M43 envelope where the ASPC sensor is better. If I want a bigger sensor, I'll go to FF.

I have to go past ISO 3200 on M43 before the ASP-C sensor is needed. I don't find myself in this situation very often. When I do, I can usually fill the gap with a faster lens and/or superior IBIS that allows me to keep the ISO down below what ASP-C sensor cameras I've shot next to can achieve. The results are about equal. Sometimes the M43 camera is better.

In situations where I can shoot in-camera HDR, I can shoot landscapes in lower light at lower ISO with an M43 camera than I can with an ASP-C camera. That's where I find myself taking images in low light - after sunset, and before sunrise. M43 with IBIS works for that, even with f 3.5-5.6 lenses. With faster lenses, even better.

 

[MShot]

If you weren't there with cameras from both formats, its impossible to know if one would have been significantly better than the other. And you can't know the context - how much light the photographer had for example. Its anecdotal.

 

[MShot]

One DPR photographer had difficulty deciding between the Nikon and an EM1 MKII with a 12-100 f/4 PRO lens on the OLY. The results of images posted in the same place/time in low light were similar.

But the previous post is right. You have to slow the shutter speed of the EM1 to keep the ISO down so if you are shooting action in low light the Nikon is better. The G9 will probably perform like the EM1 did.

 

[MShot]

Like to buy an f/1.8 MFT zoom. Who makes one?

 

[MShot]

The gap may not open. Sensors may have reached maturity without radical new technology. Whatever goes into ASP-C will come to M43. Now that SONY makes both, they can advance both at the same times if they want to.

 

[MShot]

Sometimes lower resolution on the same size sensor makes a cleaner image.

 

[MShot]

The best test is shooting the cameras side by side in the type of photography you do and looking at the results.

 

[TacticDesigns]

The best test is shooting the cameras side by side in the type of photography you do and looking at the results.

That would be the ultimate test, but . . . do you carry every camera with you to that venue?

Or . . . how do you make the short list of gear to look at?

Early in the purchase decision process there needs to be a weeding process.

Whether that is asking your peers here at the site for which cameras to look at, or looking a specs / test charts.

At the end of that process, then you can visit stores, rent gear or buy and try.

Take care & Happy Shooting!

 

[TacticDesigns]

Like to buy an f/1.8 MFT zoom. Who makes one?

+1

Good point.

This is my bad memory.

I was thinking of this lens . . .

Loading…

www.kenrockwell.com

. . . which is available for APS-C cameras.

I was looking at it before I got the Nikon D750.

I have f/2.8 zooms which I was using on a Nikon D7000 (APS-C sized sensor).

Shooting indoor sports. So high iso / low light, no flash allowed.

I couldn't change the lighting in the venue. I wasn't allowed to use flash.

The only things I could do was get a better camera (the Nikon D7200 was just coming out at the time), go full frame (in which case I already had the lenses ready for that) or . . . get a faster zoom lens.

In the end, it really seemed simpler for me to go full frame, as I already had the lenses.

Take care & Happy Shooting!

 

[MShot]

Yeah, I take a van or a pickup truck and a case of cameras.

No, actually I read the reviews, look at the technical data, the images people post. I pick a camera that looks good in a format I think I might like and borrow or rent, take two cameras to compare.

I did this with an OLY EM5 and a borrowed SONY A6000 to an outdoor event. Shot them side by side. SONY produced slightly clearer images with slightly better subject isolation. Close enough. Didn't make me want to change.

Took an OLY PEN PL/7 with an EVF and a borrowed Canon 7D MKII to shoot a dark museum. Produced similar results by shooting a slower shutter speed with the OLY. The Canon seemed gigantic. The body and two lenses many times bigger and heavier than the OLY and 5-7 lenses. Didn't buy a Canon.

Rented a Nikon 7100 to compare with an OLY EM1 MKI in low light, thought the OLY made better images with lower ISO and slower shutter speeds.

I use lab test, specs, reviews, comments form users to narrow down, then borrow/rent to make a final decision.

I like lots of formats 1" to FF. So far I stuck with M43 because of size/weight, different size bodies that use the same mount, a vast number of lenses - something that can make a good image in any situation I find myself in. Its the best system for me.

 

[MShot]

Not trying to make you look bad, Tactic. I really would like to see an f/1.8 zoom in M34. F/2.8 is adequate until I mount an f/1. prime.

An f/1.8 zoom would be bigger and heavier. A medium telephoto would probably be too big and heavy for me. I might like a standard zoom, but the OLY 12-40 f/2.8 is close to my size/weight limit for carrying around all day, so maybe an f/1.8 zoom would not work for me.

I can live without it.