ALL Gone - When good-enough is no longer good-enough

[cpt kent]

if , as you pretend, your intent is not to troll, one has to wonder why you created this detailed thread

you have made up your mind about changing your equipment so why do we need to know ?

Harold

I presume they mean (at this time) that their confidence is "all gone", there was no mention of the gear being gone (yet).

I like to watch these threads, and see if the OP ever appears again. Most of the time the post is just the 'light the fire and go' kind....

 

[miscellaneous59]

To obtain different points of view from those seeking to help rather than incorrectly judge.

 

[miscellaneous59]

I can only assume that your need to evaluate my intent superceded your ability or willingness to share.

 

[JaKing]

DR comparison.

Loading…

www.photonstophotos.net

Nothing in it unless you always shoot at the base ISO of the D7200. By ISO 200, they are equal ...

 

[miscellaneous59]

Thanks to those sharing their perspectives while affording alternative and helpful points of view. To those who interpreted my post as an affront to their gear worship my apologies and condolences toward having perhaps exposed their insecurity in this regard. As to the judgemental few I offer that you may wish to see the glass as being half full ...you'll smile more often. As always...one gets far more than what one expects or deserves when asking for some kind assistance.

 

[WhiteBeard]

Spent the weekend looking over my old photos comparing my newly acquired EM1 II + Oly 60mm Macro/25mm 1.8 pics to my old D7200 105mm Macro pics and borrowed a Sony A7 III to see for myself.

While being an "average" photographer at best In doing the admittedly subjective and unscientific comparison I came to the following conclusions:

1. I am absolutely in love with the EMI II hardware...the camera's functions, grip, features and technical capabilities much of which are understandably made possible by it utilizing the MFT system.
2. The MFT size advantage is no longer such a selling point for me when I look at the Oly Pro series lenses and compare them to the FF competition. Yes MFT is smaller and more convenient but NOT to the point where I am willing to sacrifice IQ.
3. I have come to grips with the plethora of reviews many of which espouse the benefits of MFT and its "good-enough" IQ.
4. On occasion I need to shoot in low-light with fast shutter speeds and low ISO where 2 stops becomes relevant.
5. A 50 MP raw still is of little advantage to me as I don't blow up my prints and do not pixel peep at 1:1.
6. I am no longer willing to convince myself MFT is "good-enough" or competitive with other system alternatives.
7. Given my skill level my ability to extract much better photos (especially sharpness) with the D7200 when comparing my photos its obvious.
8. The Sony A7III picture quality (Sony 85mm 1.8...in my hands) blows away the EM1 II even when using a borrowed Oly 40-150 2.8 Pro lens/25mm 1.8, handheld/tripod/flash...in all aspects.
9. While I admire what Robin Wong can do with his EMI II...I'm not Robin Wong.
10. I dread my next steps in finding something I loved to shoot with as much as I did the EMI II but was always disappointed when looking at the results in LR and comparing it to my D7200 (yes I know...apples and oranges).

While this post, is sincerely not intended to "troll" this forum I am curious in hearing the views of others who perhaps may have lost their confidence in MFT as I have.

You're quite right, On a 16 foot x 20 foot print, you will see a difference. So ditch that crappy µ4/3 piece of s**t and make some ignorant µ4/3 users happy with a good deal on used crap.

 

[jsaras]

I think this company can assist you with your dream camera rig







--
Things have never been more like today than they are right now.

 

[miscellaneous59]

Planning to donate to local high school photo club...sorry to disappoint you...given your troublesome response you may wish to have someone at your local high school actually read and explain the contextual substance of the post. It may provide some much needed relevance for you relative to what you think was said.

 

[drj3]

Planning to donate to local high school photo club...sorry to disappoint you...given your troublesome response you may wish to have someone at your local high school actually read and explain the contextual substance of the post. It may provide some much needed relevance for you relative to what you think was said.

I don't think most mFTs users have any illusions that mFTs cameras will give equivalent IQ when the FF is used with lenses that are as sharp as the mFTs lenses with the same FOV and same aperture. If your post had said you wanted the lower noise especially with low illumination, most mFTs users would have simply wished you well.

However, your example of the Sony camera FF with a similar number of megapixels and a not very good lens which needs stopped down to f5.6 on a FF for acceptable good performance is not very convincing compared to the much cheaper and sharper 45mm f1.8 Olympus lens which can be used wide open.

You don't indicate which 105mm Micro Nikon lens you used for the D7200, but the most recent one needs stopping down to equal the two Olympus lenses you listed and thus it would have no IQ advantage, again a not very convincing argument.

If you need the IQ advantage of FF, then by all means switch systems, but get lenses that could give you that advantage. If you need more resolution for the image to look sharper, don't get a 24MP FF camera, get one with a greater number of megapixels.

--
drj3

 

[Chas J]

1. While I admire what Robin Wong can do with his EMI II...I'm not Robin Wong.
2. I dread my next steps in finding something I loved to shoot with as much as I did the EMI II but was always disappointed when looking at the results in LR and comparing it to my D7200 (yes I know...apples and oranges).

While this post, is sincerely not intended to "troll" this forum I am curious in hearing the views of others who perhaps may have lost their confidence in MFT as I have.

You're quite right, On a 16 foot x 20 foot print, you will see a difference. So ditch that crappy µ4/3 piece of s**t and make some ignorant µ4/3 users happy with a good deal on used crap.

I see that animosity, rudeness and ignorance are alive and well on this site !

 

[miscellaneous59]

Makes sense...helpful...thank you...can you tell me why nature photoraphers commonly use FF lenses on crop sensor cameras? Something to do with pixel density vs actual number of pixels? Also why does total light play such an important role in image quality? Am reading the DPR review of the EMI II and they conclude when looking at image quality...resolution...that it is subpar as is clearly obvious in their IQ comparison section,? I continue to be a fan of MFT...but...when you compare it to the competition the system seems to have fallen behind. Given my skill level this is not relevant but why not get more for your $ if you can?

 

[cpt kent]

I can only assume that your need to evaluate my intent superceded your ability or willingness to share.

Not evaluating your specific intent, just a common forum occurrence.

I can't offer any opinion - I've no experience with other systems to make an informed comment on your dilemma.

My post was in reply to Harold. If I had something to say or offer specifically to you, I'd have replied to the OP.

 

[Sergey_Green]

DR comparison.

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon D7200,Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II

Nothing in it unless you always shoot at the base ISO of the D7200. By ISO 200, they are equal ...

The good start would be here ,

And I believe addressed to you specifically here ,

 

[Harold66]

To obtain different points of view from those seeking to help rather than incorrectly judge.

Sorry but your post did not seem to do that as you were trying to rally those supposedly who had « lost their confidence « with m4/3 rds

not to mention that if you are truly seeking those, they may not hang on this forum anymore

--
FOLLOW me on IG @ledaylightstudio.
thedemandingtraveler.org
www.haroldglit.com
IG :thedemandingtraveler

 

[cpt kent]

.can you tell me why nature photoraphers commonly use FF lenses on crop sensor cameras?

I believe (someone else can put this more eloquently / accurately) it's because they benefit from the 'Crop factor'. ie, using the same 200mm FF lens, on different bodies:

- FF - 200mm = 200mm

- APS (Crop factor ~1.5) = 300mm

- M43 (Crop factor 2.0) = 400mm

so you get more 'zoom', handy for birding.

(that's my take, avoiding the use of the 'E' word)

 

[400trix]

Makes sense...helpful...thank you...can you tell me why nature photoraphers commonly use FF lenses on crop sensor cameras? Something to do with pixel density vs actual number of pixels? Also why does total light play such an important role in image quality? Am reading the DPR review of the EMI II and they conclude when looking at image quality...resolution...that it is subpar as is clearly obvious in their IQ comparison section,? I continue to be a fan of MFT...but...when you compare it to the competition the system seems to have fallen behind. Given my skill level this is not relevant but why not get more for your $ if you can?

FF lenses get used because CaNikOny don’t make many high-quality lenses specifically for APS-C.

Total light relates to signal-to-noise ratio (S/N). The more light, the better the S/N. The total amount of light collected is determined by the entrance pupil of the lens: focal length divided by f-stop: a 50mm FF lens at f/5.6 has an entrance pupil of about 9mm. It turns out that you can get the same entrance pupil (and hence DOF) shooting a µ4/3 25mm lens at f/2.8: that gives you the same field-of-view and DOF. It also allows you shoot at two stops lower ISO at the same shutter speed. This is why FF only has a low-light advantage when you can get away with a thinner DOF, as Great Bustard pointed out earlier in the thread.

 

[Dave in Wales]

How much 'quality' does one need?

(

)

 

[Great Bustard]

DR comparison.

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon D7200,Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II

Nothing in it unless you always shoot at the base ISO of the D7200. By ISO 200, they are equal ...

Let's combine the chart you link above:



with another chart that gives some context as to why PDR vs ISO, rather than PDR vs exposure, is more than a little misleading:



to get a more photographically relevant chart that looks more like this:



Of course, this been pointed out to you many, many times, but you keep linking to the same PDR vs ISO charts without ever a mention of how using ISO rather than exposure on the x-axis is more than a little misleading.

And while we're talking about things being misleading, how, exactly, does PDR work as a measure of IQ? Perhaps you can explain that bit to give a context to the chart. If not, I'll be happy to flesh it out in more detail -- after all, I've done it a few times before.

Still, all that said, I would bet that, as you say, someone is more likely to say "nothing in it" with regards to the IQ differences than to point to one or the other as the clear winner. But here's DPR's comparometer just to give a visual context:



And here's DPR's DR comparometer for a visual context for those who push shadows a bit:



which looks like more of a difference than the PDR charts show (since these show DR, not PDR), but relevant only for those who are pushing shadows a bunch.

Anyway, my point is that if we're going to present technical charts, we should do so in a photographically relevant manner, which means both *explicitly* noting things that can lead to gross misunderstandings (ISO vs exposure, in this case) as well as what relevance the particular measure has with regards to the IQ of the photo (in this case, PDR vs DR).

 

[Paul De Bra]

This is a matter of physics. The larger sensor captures more light and gives a better signal to noise ratio when there is little light to begin with, when you only need a razor-thin depth of focus and need to keep the shutter speed high.

The reality of physics is that if you have low light and need a fixed, significant depth of focus and high shutter speed the differences disappear. To take more or less the same picture as for instance 50mm, 1/100s, f/4, ISO 800 on a m43 camera you need to dial the full frame camera to 100mm, 1/100s, f/8, ISO 3200. The two stops advantage that full frame gives over m43 is lost because you need to stop down the lens by two stops and therefore dial in a two stops higher ISO.

When there is a lot of light the larger sensor always wins but in low light the need for depth of focus kills the advantage if you need that DoF.

Considering that I shoot more in low light, need enough DoF and need a reasonable shutter speed because of moving subjects, I am prepared to compromise in favor of the smaller size and lighter weight of m43 equipment.

--
Getting to know the Olympus OM-D E-M5 II.
Public pictures at http://debra.zenfolio.com/.

 

[LightCameraAction]

There is nothing wrong with wanting a full frame camera or new gear, and there are certainly advantages to larger sensors; however, I suspect that the OP is missing an important point.

In my opinion elements such as lighting, composition, and capturing the decicive moment are much more important than a bit or noise or a small improvement in sharpness. These, along with good technical skills, are what make Robin Wong's photos excellent (and will make or break a photo regardless of sensor size).

If the OP is disappointed with micro 4/3, they should go ahead and upgrade. However, I doubt the camera is the limiting factor.

BTW: My dad has a Nikon D7200 (and pro level lenses), and we have made several prints from both his camera and my EM5. The camera has never mattered. It's all about the photographer, lighting, composition, capturing a moment, and artistic vision.