A thought about sensor size and IQ

[Ab Latchin]

I just finished editing some images for my brothers new album release, the main image was shot on a gfx 50s.

I wasn’t the photographer, but between my brothers requests to both the photographer and designer working on the project his print proof came back a shock to him, so he asked me to do some editing and prepress for him.

When I got the RAW file it was at iso1250 and was very underexposed, I couldn’t say why as I wasn’t at the shoot. But it was, it required a lot of exposure adjustment before the final look was applied.

On my drive home it got me thinking, as some of you know from my last post I’m thinking about combining 43rds with this mini medium format instead of FF. I was thinking that as we all know with the equivalence arguments here, for the same light gathering there is very little IQ differences between formats of a similar age or technology.

But as I have been listening to comparisons between FF user’s comparing the GFX bodies to their FF they would speak about how the larger sensor and greater bit depth produces a better overall file, tonality, DR and colour being brought up a lot.

Here where my thinking went, and where I want to hear your thoughts. If IQ pivots entirely around total light gathered vs sensor size, this must be true between FF and GFX bodies. If they were to shoot with the same total light, would they see the difference, does a16bit file produce a better image from the same amount of data (light)?

Is that making sense?

 

[James Stirling]

I just finished editing some images for my brothers new album release, the main image was shot on a gfx 50s.

I wasn’t the photographer, but between my brothers requests to both the photographer and designer working on the project his print proof came back a shock to him, so he asked me to do some editing and prepress for him.

When I got the RAW file it was at iso1250 and was very underexposed, I couldn’t say why as I wasn’t at the shoot. But it was, it required a lot of exposure adjustment before the final look was applied.

On my drive home it got me thinking, as some of you know from my last post I’m thinking about combining 43rds with this mini medium format instead of FF. I was thinking that as we all know with the equivalence arguments here, for the same light gathering there is very little IQ differences between formats of a similar age or technology.

But as I have been listening to comparisons between FF user’s comparing the GFX bodies to their FF they would speak about how the larger sensor and greater bit depth produces a better overall file, tonality, DR and colour being brought up a lot.

Hi Ab , They have their advantages and disadvantages , the lenses which seem to be very good as a rule. Jim kasson has done a good bit of testing of them on his site.If Jim has tested something it is always comprehensive

A lot of the lenses are relatively speaking slow sacrificing some of their potential light gathering ability. If I was jumping into the system it would be with the 100mp bodies . i don't think that the 50mp models are far enough ahead of FF to justify the sacrifices

I think that there are adapters that allow for the use of some 35mm lenses that cover the whole sensor widening the choice somewhat

Here where my thinking went, and where I want to hear your thoughts. If IQ pivots entirely around total light gathered vs sensor size, this must be true between FF and GFX bodies. If they were to shoot with the same total light, would they see the difference, does a16bit file produce a better image from the same amount of data (light)?

Is that making sense?

I have occasionally had a look at the 100mp Fuji's downloading dozens of raw samples and the images are lovely . The sensor size is a good bit smaller than MF film . With around 1.68x the area of 35mm sensors which is just a tad more than m43 compared to Sony/Nikon/Fuji /Pentax APS

I think 12 vs 14 vs 16bit really only comes into play at the absolute extremes. Jim Kasson has tested this as well. He is a great resource for users of the systems he favours

https://blog.kasson.com/gfx-100/visual-comparisons-of-fuji-gfx-100-14-and-16-bit-raw-precision/

For personal use the rumours that have been going on for a while about a fixed lens Fuji MF are more tempting for me . I have the Fuji GW690 III film camera I love MF 6:9 . I appreciate that they will not have that size of sensor but it sounds interesting

--
Jim Stirling:
“It is one thing to show a man that he is in error, and another to put him in possession of truth.” Locke
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post

 

[grsnovi]

I re-entered photography about 13 years ago with a 24mp APS-C camera and no notion about crop/equivalence.

I then began adding MFT bodies with various sensor densities and decided that I just wasn't getting what I wanted so I picked up a 42mp FF and still wasn't getting what I wanted.

This past year I shot a lot of 35mm film and MF 120mm film (which was commercially developed and scanned). Then I started doing my own development again and started scanning with the 42mp Sony.

I think at some point along the way I reached a point of diminishing returns.

MF film density v. digital?

At some point what you intend to do with your work comes into play big time. Are you shooting to fill a billboard? A 6' x 10' poster? A mobile phone screen? A movie screen?

In the end it's all about the feelings evoked by the work and not the mechanics.

 

[Barry Twycross]

I have both M4/3rds cameras, and a GFX50R.

The GFX produces really gorgeous graduation, and is more flexible with large dynamic range in images, and badly exposed frames.

For the most part, I don't see a difference, unless the subject is particularly challenging, or it's printed at greater than 40 inches. I use the M4/3 cameras most of the time.

 

[Ab Latchin]

I just finished editing some images for my brothers new album release, the main image was shot on a gfx 50s.

I wasn’t the photographer, but between my brothers requests to both the photographer and designer working on the project his print proof came back a shock to him, so he asked me to do some editing and prepress for him.

When I got the RAW file it was at iso1250 and was very underexposed, I couldn’t say why as I wasn’t at the shoot. But it was, it required a lot of exposure adjustment before the final look was applied.

On my drive home it got me thinking, as some of you know from my last post I’m thinking about combining 43rds with this mini medium format instead of FF. I was thinking that as we all know with the equivalence arguments here, for the same light gathering there is very little IQ differences between formats of a similar age or technology.

But as I have been listening to comparisons between FF user’s comparing the GFX bodies to their FF they would speak about how the larger sensor and greater bit depth produces a better overall file, tonality, DR and colour being brought up a lot.

Hi Ab , They have their advantages and disadvantages , the lenses which seem to be very good as a rule. Jim kasson has done a good bit of testing of them on his site.If Jim has tested something it is always comprehensive

A lot of the lenses are relatively speaking slow sacrificing some of their potential light gathering ability. If I was jumping into the system it would be with the 100mp bodies . i don't think that the 50mp models are far enough ahead of FF to justify the sacrifices

I think that there are adapters that allow for the use of some 35mm lenses that cover the whole sensor widening the choice somewhat

Here where my thinking went, and where I want to hear your thoughts. If IQ pivots entirely around total light gathered vs sensor size, this must be true between FF and GFX bodies. If they were to shoot with the same total light, would they see the difference, does a16bit file produce a better image from the same amount of data (light)?

Is that making sense?

I have occasionally had a look at the 100mp Fuji's downloading dozens of raw samples and the images are lovely . The sensor size is a good bit smaller than MF film . With around 1.68x the area of 35mm sensors which is just a tad more than m43 compared to Sony/Nikon/Fuji /Pentax APS

I think 12 vs 14 vs 16bit really only comes into play at the absolute extremes. Jim Kasson has tested this as well. He is a great resource for users of the systems he favours

this is the bit I’m most interested in, in the studio at base iso, or when there is enough light then we see IQ improvements make gains… but when when we are constrained? I know we can exchange resolution for noise performance, but I’m think more about colour and tonality.

https://blog.kasson.com/gfx-100/visual-comparisons-of-fuji-gfx-100-14-and-16-bit-raw-precision/

For personal use the rumours that have been going on for a while about a fixed lens Fuji MF are more tempting for me . I have the Fuji GW690 III film camera I love MF 6:9 . I appreciate that they will not have that size of sensor but it sounds interesting

i saw that and was intrigued. I’ll check out that site and see what he is finding out. Appreciate the link.

 

[cba_melbourne]

I re-entered photography about 13 years ago with a 24mp APS-C camera and no notion about crop/equivalence.

I then began adding MFT bodies with various sensor densities and decided that I just wasn't getting what I wanted so I picked up a 42mp FF and still wasn't getting what I wanted.

This past year I shot a lot of 35mm film and MF 120mm film (which was commercially developed and scanned). Then I started doing my own development again and started scanning with the 42mp Sony.

I think at some point along the way I reached a point of diminishing returns.

MF film density v. digital?

At some point what you intend to do with your work comes into play big time. Are you shooting to fill a billboard? A 6' x 10' poster? A mobile phone screen? A movie screen?

I think there can be more to it, than just what you intend to do with your work right now and today.

It is likely that in future, output devices will be able to make far better use of the enhanced graduation and dynamic range and resolution, than is possible (or affordable) today. So, you could somehow look at it as a way to future proof your work.

In the end it's all about the feelings evoked by the work and not the mechanics.

That is absolutely true.

The thing is, future expectations with regard to "mechanics" will invariably be much higher. Your work may be precluded from evoking feelings if nobody looks at it, because it does not meet the standards of mechanics of the day.

Today, looking at a 4000 year old Egyptian king mummy still evokes feelings. That is because they did not spare any expense to make sure their remains will endure time. I am not suggesting someone may look at your MF pics in the year 6024, but you get the gist.

 

[Paul Amyes]

Here where my thinking went, and where I want to hear your thoughts. If IQ pivots entirely around total light gathered vs sensor size, this must be true between FF and GFX bodies. If they were to shoot with the same total light, would they see the difference, does a16bit file produce a better image from the same amount of data (light)?

Is that making sense?

The difference between the Fuji GFX100 sensor and so called full frame sensor isn't as great as that between m4/3 and full frame. I think you'd probably see something like a 2/3 stop improvement. Having said that combine it with the 16bit RAW files and then the difference might be a little more apparent.

I think most people buy medium format for different reasons other than the improved light gathering capability. Tonal roll off I think is the major draw card. It gives a more "organic" look as opposed to the so called crunchy digital look.

Increased bit depth will certainly give a more malleable file in post processing. Just as well given the state of the RAW file you were given.

 

[Ab Latchin]

Here where my thinking went, and where I want to hear your thoughts. If IQ pivots entirely around total light gathered vs sensor size, this must be true between FF and GFX bodies. If they were to shoot with the same total light, would they see the difference, does a16bit file produce a better image from the same amount of data (light)?

Is that making sense?

The difference between the Fuji GFX100 sensor and so called full frame sensor isn't as great as that between m4/3 and full frame. I think you'd probably see something like a 2/3 stop improvement. Having said that combine it with the 16bit RAW files and then the difference might be a little more apparent.

I think most people buy medium format for different reasons other than the improved light gathering capability. Tonal roll off I think is the major draw card. It gives a more "organic" look as opposed to the so called crunchy digital look.

Increased bit depth will certainly give a more malleable file in post processing. Just as well given the state of the RAW file you were given.

but would the file be more malleable if the two files received the same light, or would the 16 bit file simply not have as much data?

 

[acfo]

It is likely that in future, output devices will be able to make far better use of the enhanced graduation and dynamic range and resolution, than is possible (or affordable) today. So, you could somehow look at it as a way to future proof your work.

Yagni

 

[Cafe Racer]

I just finished editing some images for my brothers new album release, the main image was shot on a gfx 50s.

I wasn’t the photographer, but between my brothers requests to both the photographer and designer working on the project his print proof came back a shock to him, so he asked me to do some editing and prepress for him.

When I got the RAW file it was at iso1250 and was very underexposed, I couldn’t say why as I wasn’t at the shoot. But it was, it required a lot of exposure adjustment before the final look was applied.

On my drive home it got me thinking, as some of you know from my last post I’m thinking about combining 43rds with this mini medium format instead of FF. I was thinking that as we all know with the equivalence arguments here, for the same light gathering there is very little IQ differences between formats of a similar age or technology.

But as I have been listening to comparisons between FF user’s comparing the GFX bodies to their FF they would speak about how the larger sensor and greater bit depth produces a better overall file, tonality, DR and colour being brought up a lot.

Here where my thinking went, and where I want to hear your thoughts. If IQ pivots entirely around total light gathered vs sensor size, this must be true between FF and GFX bodies. If they were to shoot with the same total light, would they see the difference, does a16bit file produce a better image from the same amount of data (light)?

Perhaps this thread should be moved to a more appropriate forum.

Is that making sense?

No. I don't understand why the m4/3 forum would be the appropriate place to start a thread about the image quality difference between a 16bit file from a Fuji GFX and a full frame camera.

 

[ahaslett]

I shoot 16Mpix and 20Mpix MFT and 61Mpix FF. I have shot 36Mpix and 42Mpix FF in the past.

You are right about equivalence. When constrained by depth of field and shutter speed, images from different sensor sizes look much the same, but not entirely.

Some people shoot with larger sensors because they want shallow depth of field, using large lenses. Some because they want to capture action in low light, using even larger lenses. I think you ruled those out of the discussion.

I shoot FF when I want resolution and DR at base ISO. To make full use of DR, you have to shoot RAW and expose correctly, not for how the JPEG looks.

You need more bit depth to capture the number of tonal steps available in a scene of higher DR. You adjust the tonal curve to crunch those down to a JPEG.

None of this matters unless you are viewing the image large enough or you have a lot of detail in shadows, or both.

Lenses are designed differently for different systems, so you can confuse the look of a sensor size with the characteristics of the lenses that people want to buy.

Although I can imagine circumstances where a GFX100 might enable me to capture slightly better images, the degree of skill required to deliver that in reality, and the cost mean that it has no attraction for me.

Diffraction and noise are both limits to capturing detail in images. Enough depth of field is a challenge for both. You can get worse results with a higher resolution sensor in very poor light, but generally both are limits to how useful sensor resolution is, ie how large you can view.

I’ve wondered about buying an STF lens, but I’m not that interested in the kind of images you shoot with one. There is a big lens choice across the two mounts I use, maybe a third mount would add something extra in lens characteristics. I can’t get excited about that.

I note that many people don’t see IQ differences that seem obvious to me. The more I use different kit, the more readily I see these differences. Maybe using MF would raise my bar, probably not enough to matter. In any case IQ is already sufficient for most of my photography.

Given the differences between CFA sensors and Foveon ones, I’m also interested in exploring whether different demosaicing algorithms might be appropriate for different subject types. I think that using 61Mpix already pushes demosaicing artefacts below the threshold of visibility in most images, but a 20Mpix Bayer image only matches an 8Mpix Foveon one for colour separation. Unfortunately Foveon is not good for colour accuracy or DR.

TLR I doubt it, but only comparing my FF kit with MF would enable me to say for sure. Comparing my FF kit with MFT over many years would point me to the limited situations where it might matter to me.

Andrew

 

[Ab Latchin]

I just finished editing some images for my brothers new album release, the main image was shot on a gfx 50s.

I wasn’t the photographer, but between my brothers requests to both the photographer and designer working on the project his print proof came back a shock to him, so he asked me to do some editing and prepress for him.

When I got the RAW file it was at iso1250 and was very underexposed, I couldn’t say why as I wasn’t at the shoot. But it was, it required a lot of exposure adjustment before the final look was applied.

On my drive home it got me thinking, as some of you know from my last post I’m thinking about combining 43rds with this mini medium format instead of FF. I was thinking that as we all know with the equivalence arguments here, for the same light gathering there is very little IQ differences between formats of a similar age or technology.

But as I have been listening to comparisons between FF user’s comparing the GFX bodies to their FF they would speak about how the larger sensor and greater bit depth produces a better overall file, tonality, DR and colour being brought up a lot.

Here where my thinking went, and where I want to hear your thoughts. If IQ pivots entirely around total light gathered vs sensor size, this must be true between FF and GFX bodies. If they were to shoot with the same total light, would they see the difference, does a16bit file produce a better image from the same amount of data (light)?

Perhaps this thread should be moved to a more appropriate forum.

Who the hell are you? while don’t you go to another forum? I don’t think there has been a place with more discussion about sensor size difference and the effect on image quality than here.

Is that making sense?

No. I don't understand why the m4/3 forum would be the appropriate place to start a thread about the image quality difference between a 16bit file from a Fuji GFX and a full frame camera.

See above, and instead of policing other peoples conversations, go start your own.

 

[Ab Latchin]

What I’m really trying to understand stems from two repeated conversations here. One, that we should have more than 12bits. And the second, that sensor size is as much about total light as anything else.



so my thinking would be to get the absolute in IQ to pair with m43rds. It’s also a bonus that both frame 4:3.



But aside from resolution, as Jim mentioned in a previous post, editing 100mp isn’t a job I would appreciate. But better skin tones, better colours and more DR would… but judging by all the charts out there these things degrade with the need to increase iso or push files… so is there any advantage to 16 bit if the file doesn’t have the data due to light. I do know resolution and NR can help with performed DR… anyways it looks like unless it is people talking about how m43rds can punch above its weight due to this reality, people suddenly lose interest if the shot is on the other foot.

i do still need to look at Jims link though. I found as well there isn’t too much of an advantage to the 50mp MF variants vs FF, but I’m also not keen on working with 100mp files :/ I would prefer developing 50mp sensors, but it seems the MP Trace isn’t quite over.

 

[ahaslett]

What I’m really trying to understand stems from two repeated conversations here. One, that we should have more than 12bits. And the second, that sensor size is as much about total light as anything else.

Not much point in more than 12 bits if the lowest bits are mostly noise.

so my thinking would be to get the absolute in IQ to pair with m43rds. It’s also a bonus that both frame 4:3.

That is certainly true but the question is whether it makes any real difference.

But aside from resolution, as Jim mentioned in a previous post, editing 100mp isn’t a job I would appreciate. But better skin tones, better colours and more DR would… but judging by all the charts out there these things degrade with the need to increase iso or push files… so is there any advantage to 16 bit if the file doesn’t have the data due to light. I do know resolution and NR can help with performed DR… anyways it looks like unless it is people talking about how m43rds can punch above its weight due to this reality, people suddenly lose interest if the shot is on the other foot.

Not me.

i do still need to look at Jims link though. I found as well there isn’t too much of an advantage to the 50mp MF variants vs FF, but I’m also not keen on working with 100mp files :/ I would prefer developing 50mp sensors, but it seems the MP Trace isn’t quite over.

100Mpix has a benefit over 61Mpix in very limited circumstances. Also my impression is that AI Noise Reduction was trained on less than 60Mpix images and more with people than other subjects. In very noisy images, you can get something better looking with 20Mpix than 61Mpix using DeepPrime. The AI just invents too many artefacts if it has more noisy detail to work with. In less noisy images, they look better if you start with more detail, even moderately noisy detail.

There is a fair bit of difference between handheld and tripod photography once noise starts to become an issue.

I'm content with 61Mpix FF and two mounts with large lens catalogues. The only way to find out if MF does something for you is to try. Maybe a used GFX100 body and one prime lens in your favourite FL. High resolution bodies are a challenge for lenses, technique, composition and processing, if you want to exploit them.

Larger formats get expensive quickly - better be sure you know your priorities for gear!

Andrew

--
Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
Please feel free to edit any images that I post

 

[Cafe Racer]

I just finished editing some images for my brothers new album release, the main image was shot on a gfx 50s.

I wasn’t the photographer, but between my brothers requests to both the photographer and designer working on the project his print proof came back a shock to him, so he asked me to do some editing and prepress for him.

When I got the RAW file it was at iso1250 and was very underexposed, I couldn’t say why as I wasn’t at the shoot. But it was, it required a lot of exposure adjustment before the final look was applied.

On my drive home it got me thinking, as some of you know from my last post I’m thinking about combining 43rds with this mini medium format instead of FF. I was thinking that as we all know with the equivalence arguments here, for the same light gathering there is very little IQ differences between formats of a similar age or technology.

But as I have been listening to comparisons between FF user’s comparing the GFX bodies to their FF they would speak about how the larger sensor and greater bit depth produces a better overall file, tonality, DR and colour being brought up a lot.

Here where my thinking went, and where I want to hear your thoughts. If IQ pivots entirely around total light gathered vs sensor size, this must be true between FF and GFX bodies. If they were to shoot with the same total light, would they see the difference, does a16bit file produce a better image from the same amount of data (light)?

Perhaps this thread should be moved to a more appropriate forum.

Who the hell are you? while don’t you go to another forum? I don’t think there has been a place with more discussion about sensor size difference and the effect on image quality than here.

Between medium format and full frame?

Is that making sense?

No. I don't understand why the m4/3 forum would be the appropriate place to start a thread about the image quality difference between a 16bit file from a Fuji GFX and a full frame camera.

See above, and instead of policing other peoples conversations, go start your own.

Wow!

 

[Ab Latchin]

I just finished editing some images for my brothers new album release, the main image was shot on a gfx 50s.

I wasn’t the photographer, but between my brothers requests to both the photographer and designer working on the project his print proof came back a shock to him, so he asked me to do some editing and prepress for him.

When I got the RAW file it was at iso1250 and was very underexposed, I couldn’t say why as I wasn’t at the shoot. But it was, it required a lot of exposure adjustment before the final look was applied.

On my drive home it got me thinking, as some of you know from my last post I’m thinking about combining 43rds with this mini medium format instead of FF. I was thinking that as we all know with the equivalence arguments here, for the same light gathering there is very little IQ differences between formats of a similar age or technology.

But as I have been listening to comparisons between FF user’s comparing the GFX bodies to their FF they would speak about how the larger sensor and greater bit depth produces a better overall file, tonality, DR and colour being brought up a lot.

Here where my thinking went, and where I want to hear your thoughts. If IQ pivots entirely around total light gathered vs sensor size, this must be true between FF and GFX bodies. If they were to shoot with the same total light, would they see the difference, does a16bit file produce a better image from the same amount of data (light)?

Perhaps this thread should be moved to a more appropriate forum.

Who the hell are you? while don’t you go to another forum? I don’t think there has been a place with more discussion about sensor size difference and the effect on image quality than here.

Between medium format and full frame?

It doesn’t matter, the principals hold regardless.

Is that making sense?

No. I don't understand why the m4/3 forum would be the appropriate place to start a thread about the image quality difference between a 16bit file from a Fuji GFX and a full frame camera.

See above, and instead of policing other peoples conversations, go start your own.

Wow!

 

[Ab Latchin]

What I’m really trying to understand stems from two repeated conversations here. One, that we should have more than 12bits. And the second, that sensor size is as much about total light as anything else.

Not much point in more than 12 bits if the lowest bits are mostly noise.

Right, is that true for 16 bit as well if the gain (iso) is boosted?

so my thinking would be to get the absolute in IQ to pair with m43rds. It’s also a bonus that both frame 4:3.

That is certainly true but the question is whether it makes any real difference.

The gh6 bodies are for video, and in that respect with their open gate they are superb workman bodies.

But aside from resolution, as Jim mentioned in a previous post, editing 100mp isn’t a job I would appreciate. But better skin tones, better colours and more DR would… but judging by all the charts out there these things degrade with the need to increase iso or push files… so is there any advantage to 16 bit if the file doesn’t have the data due to light. I do know resolution and NR can help with performed DR… anyways it looks like unless it is people talking about how m43rds can punch above its weight due to this reality, people suddenly lose interest if the shot is on the other foot.

Not me.

i do still need to look at Jims link though. I found as well there isn’t too much of an advantage to the 50mp MF variants vs FF, but I’m also not keen on working with 100mp files :/ I would prefer developing 50mp sensors, but it seems the MP Trace isn’t quite over.

100Mpix has a benefit over 61Mpix in very limited circumstances. Also my impression is that AI Noise Reduction was trained on less than 60Mpix images and more with people than other subjects. In very noisy images, you can get something better looking with 20Mpix than 61Mpix using DeepPrime. The AI just invents too many artefacts if it has more noisy detail to work with. In less noisy images, they look better if you start with more detail, even moderately noisy detail.

That sounds interesting, I did use the noise reduction on 12 pm files and it was okay. I might do a quick test to see if there is a performance difference based on resolution.

There is a fair bit of difference between handheld and tripod photography once noise starts to become an issue.

I'm content with 61Mpix FF and two mounts with large lens catalogues. The only way to find out if MF does something for you is to try. Maybe a used GFX100 body and one prime lens in your favourite FL. High resolution bodies are a challenge for lenses, technique, composition and processing, if you want to exploit them.

Larger formats get expensive quickly - better be sure you know your priorities for gear!

Andrew

 

[Mark Ransom]

I don’t think there has been a place with more discussion about sensor size difference and the effect on image quality than here.

Between medium format and full frame?

It doesn’t matter, the principals hold regardless.

You're not wrong, this forum obsesses about sensor size more than any other. But a lot of that has to do with the vast size difference between m4/3 and FF, 2x on the diagonal and 3.8x in area (i.e. light gathering). The difference between FF and MF is much less pronounced, 1.3x on the diagonal and 1.7x in area. I'd expect that to be much more subtle.

 

[Ab Latchin]

I don’t think there has been a place with more discussion about sensor size difference and the effect on image quality than here.

Between medium format and full frame?

It doesn’t matter, the principals hold regardless.

You're not wrong, this forum obsesses about sensor size more than any other. But a lot of that has to do with the vast size difference between m4/3 and FF, 2x on the diagonal and 3.8x in area (i.e. light gathering). The difference between FF and MF is much less pronounced, 1.3x on the diagonal and 1.7x in area. I'd expect that to be much more subtle.

That's what I was thinking, but there is the 16bit vs 12/14bit as well as the resolution (which is a big contributor to overall IQ performance).

Either way, I'm in the studio doing some catch up, so will look at Jim's link to see what I can learn. I'm starting to slip away from the idea of adding the smaller MF bodies, just cost, size, AF performance and surprisingly flash sync speeds (I will most likely be taking the equipment to Tilicho lake early next year to shoot some commercial work for brands).

I still want to better understand if 16bit makes no difference to IQ for the same light gathering. So for example if a 12bit m43rds camera were to shoot at equivalent settings as a 16bit MF body (so collected the same light), would the images be the same, would there be this big tonal and colour advantage, or would it be lost to the fact that the data is the same (light).

 

[Cafe Racer]

I just finished editing some images for my brothers new album release, the main image was shot on a gfx 50s.

I wasn’t the photographer, but between my brothers requests to both the photographer and designer working on the project his print proof came back a shock to him, so he asked me to do some editing and prepress for him.

When I got the RAW file it was at iso1250 and was very underexposed, I couldn’t say why as I wasn’t at the shoot. But it was, it required a lot of exposure adjustment before the final look was applied.

On my drive home it got me thinking, as some of you know from my last post I’m thinking about combining 43rds with this mini medium format instead of FF. I was thinking that as we all know with the equivalence arguments here, for the same light gathering there is very little IQ differences between formats of a similar age or technology.

But as I have been listening to comparisons between FF user’s comparing the GFX bodies to their FF they would speak about how the larger sensor and greater bit depth produces a better overall file, tonality, DR and colour being brought up a lot.

Here where my thinking went, and where I want to hear your thoughts. If IQ pivots entirely around total light gathered vs sensor size, this must be true between FF and GFX bodies. If they were to shoot with the same total light, would they see the difference, does a16bit file produce a better image from the same amount of data (light)?

Perhaps this thread should be moved to a more appropriate forum.

Who the hell are you? while don’t you go to another forum? I don’t think there has been a place with more discussion about sensor size difference and the effect on image quality than here.

Between medium format and full frame?

It doesn’t matter, the principals hold regardless.

Moving a thread to a forum that's more in line with the topic is nothing unusual or controversial; it often benefits the OP.

For instance, when you say you've been listening to comparisons between FF user’s comparing the GFX bodies to their FF, were those discussions all on the micro 4/3rds forum? I assume you went to the appropriate forums to read those discussions, which would make perfect sense?

Is that making sense?

No. I don't understand why the m4/3 forum would be the appropriate place to start a thread about the image quality difference between a 16bit file from a Fuji GFX and a full frame camera.

See above, and instead of policing other peoples conversations, go start your own.

Wow!