A thought about sensor size and IQ

[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)?

Is that making sense?

I had a OMD E-M5 II and E-M1X until two weeks ago, and I also have a Z9 and A7R IV and few A7R III Astro modified bodies for Astro, recently upgraded to GFX100s, There is really day and night difference between the MFT and Fuji Medium Format in terms of image quality, including noise, rendering and everything else. it's really not much to compare,

Fuji GFX 50s, Sony A7iv, Sony RX10iv, Panasonic GX9.

View attachment 72daa013220e46dd9f9132edaa294c2b.jpg

I only used my MFT for telephoto application so I only use it with the 300 F4 and 100-400, I have the 12-100 F4 pro as well for the " walk around", but then due to the above mentioned, after shot side by side with my FF system for a while , my MFT system ended up staying in the closet and I always grabbed my Nikon Z9 with those much bigger and heavier FF super telephoto primes instead every single time when I go out, I rather put up with that " burden" still want to use them over my MFT, so my MFT system has been sitting in the closet for a long time , that's why I decided to let go my whole MFT system.

However, I don't mind to get a small, updated Pen with a pancake lens though, that was one of the major attraction of MFT when I first got into this system. but the system keep on growing in size and weight, while the sensor and IQ stays the same, that's where it lost the attraction to me.

 

[Cafe Racer]

I'm no technical expert . I happen to shoot sometime real estate interiors for my job , mostly for listing sites .

I have seen interiors shot with MF and I was blown away by the quality of the pictures , and one did not need to view at 100% to realize it . By quality I mean the " depth" , colours, 3D rendering, a sharp yet " soft" organic output , simply gorgeous . No way I could achieve this with m4/3 , although I love the format . I've considered buying into MF but I'm semi retired now and don't have the means for it .

When Pentax first came out with a MF, it was amazing to see samples from it posted in the forum. Even reduced to web size there was something obviously different and better compared to the APS-C images. Even before you saw which camera had taken the picture, you just knew.

Pentax 645d, Olympus E-M5iii.

Despite that, I never had a desire for one. The lightness in my wallet would never counteract the heaviness of the camera and lenses.

 

[gary0319]

I'm no technical expert . I happen to shoot sometime real estate interiors for my job , mostly for listing sites .

I have seen interiors shot with MF and I was blown away by the quality of the pictures , and one did not need to view at 100% to realize it . By quality I mean the " depth" , colours, 3D rendering, a sharp yet " soft" organic output , simply gorgeous . No way I could achieve this with m4/3 , although I love the format . I've considered buying into MF but I'm semi retired now and don't have the means for it .

When Pentax first came out with a MF, it was amazing to see samples from it posted in the forum. Even reduced to web size there was something obviously different and better compared to the APS-C images. Even before you saw which camera had taken the picture, you just knew.

Pentax 645d, Olympus E-M5iii.

Despite that, I never had a desire for one. The lightness in my wallet would never counteract the heaviness of the camera and lenses.

The difference is readily apparent, IMO.

 

[Cafe Racer]

I'm no technical expert . I happen to shoot sometime real estate interiors for my job , mostly for listing sites .

I have seen interiors shot with MF and I was blown away by the quality of the pictures , and one did not need to view at 100% to realize it . By quality I mean the " depth" , colours, 3D rendering, a sharp yet " soft" organic output , simply gorgeous . No way I could achieve this with m4/3 , although I love the format . I've considered buying into MF but I'm semi retired now and don't have the means for it .

When Pentax first came out with a MF, it was amazing to see samples from it posted in the forum. Even reduced to web size there was something obviously different and better compared to the APS-C images. Even before you saw which camera had taken the picture, you just knew.

Pentax 645d, Olympus E-M5iii.

Despite that, I never had a desire for one. The lightness in my wallet would never counteract the heaviness of the camera and lenses.

The difference is readily apparent, IMO.

Can you describe the difference you see?

 

[gary0319]

I'm no technical expert . I happen to shoot sometime real estate interiors for my job , mostly for listing sites .

I have seen interiors shot with MF and I was blown away by the quality of the pictures , and one did not need to view at 100% to realize it . By quality I mean the " depth" , colours, 3D rendering, a sharp yet " soft" organic output , simply gorgeous . No way I could achieve this with m4/3 , although I love the format . I've considered buying into MF but I'm semi retired now and don't have the means for it .

When Pentax first came out with a MF, it was amazing to see samples from it posted in the forum. Even reduced to web size there was something obviously different and better compared to the APS-C images. Even before you saw which camera had taken the picture, you just knew.

Pentax 645d, Olympus E-M5iii.

Despite that, I never had a desire for one. The lightness in my wallet would never counteract the heaviness of the camera and lenses.

The difference is readily apparent, IMO.

Can you describe the difference you see?

There is a 3d effect in the details and better color quality in the 645 image. Of course they are two different photos with different lighting but I suspect that were the images reversed the same difference would still hold for the 645

 

[Cafe Racer]

I'm no technical expert . I happen to shoot sometime real estate interiors for my job , mostly for listing sites .

I have seen interiors shot with MF and I was blown away by the quality of the pictures , and one did not need to view at 100% to realize it . By quality I mean the " depth" , colours, 3D rendering, a sharp yet " soft" organic output , simply gorgeous . No way I could achieve this with m4/3 , although I love the format . I've considered buying into MF but I'm semi retired now and don't have the means for it .

When Pentax first came out with a MF, it was amazing to see samples from it posted in the forum. Even reduced to web size there was something obviously different and better compared to the APS-C images. Even before you saw which camera had taken the picture, you just knew.

Pentax 645d, Olympus E-M5iii.

Despite that, I never had a desire for one. The lightness in my wallet would never counteract the heaviness of the camera and lenses.

The difference is readily apparent, IMO.

Can you describe the difference you see?

There is a 3d effect in the details

Is a 3d effect in the details only possible with medium format?

and better color quality in the 645 image.

Can you describe what you mean by better colour quality?

Of course they are two different photos with different lighting but I suspect that were the images reversed the same difference would still hold for the 645

So being different photos with different lighting is not particularly relevant when distinguishing the difference?

 

[ahaslett]

The settings aren't equivalent, for example at f9 the MFT image will have noticeable diffraction (and it does). The subjects and lighting are different. Not sure why the images weren't at base ISO.

I can't see any obvious difference personally - neither look that good. I'd also say they were jpegs, because I would adjust the tone curves if I'd shot these RAW.

Andrew

 

[Cafe Racer]

The settings aren't equivalent, for example at f9 the MFT image will have noticeable diffraction (and it does). The subjects and lighting are different. Not sure why the images weren't at base ISO.

I can't see any obvious difference personally - neither look that good. I'd also say they were jpegs, because I would adjust the tone curves if I'd shot these RAW.

Gary0319 says the difference is readily apparent. What do you think he's seeing that you can't?

 

[ahaslett]

The settings aren't equivalent, for example at f9 the MFT image will have noticeable diffraction (and it does). The subjects and lighting are different. Not sure why the images weren't at base ISO.

I can't see any obvious difference personally - neither look that good. I'd also say they were jpegs, because I would adjust the tone curves if I'd shot these RAW.

Gary0319 says the difference is readily apparent. What do you think he's seeing that you can't?

Well, I can see differences between shots with 20Mpix MFT and 61Mpix FF, and definite differences due to lenses.

I really can't say what Gary can see that I can't. It doesn't help that neither image is that striking in terms of IQ/impact.

If we are comparing different images, how about:



View attachment f97240b57ce5488b968d50825d35b0d4.jpg





Pretty much every element different and I'm not so happy with the way the RAW processor worked on the first one, to the point that I upgraded Capture One to be able to use it with that (new) camera.

Does one of these look better to you?

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

 

[gary0319]

I'm no technical expert . I happen to shoot sometime real estate interiors for my job , mostly for listing sites .

I have seen interiors shot with MF and I was blown away by the quality of the pictures , and one did not need to view at 100% to realize it . By quality I mean the " depth" , colours, 3D rendering, a sharp yet " soft" organic output , simply gorgeous . No way I could achieve this with m4/3 , although I love the format . I've considered buying into MF but I'm semi retired now and don't have the means for it .

When Pentax first came out with a MF, it was amazing to see samples from it posted in the forum. Even reduced to web size there was something obviously different and better compared to the APS-C images. Even before you saw which camera had taken the picture, you just knew.

Pentax 645d, Olympus E-M5iii.

Despite that, I never had a desire for one. The lightness in my wallet would never counteract the heaviness of the camera and lenses.

The difference is readily apparent, IMO.

Can you describe the difference you see?

There is a 3d effect in the details

Is a 3d effect in the details only possible with medium format?

and better color quality in the 645 image.

Can you describe what you mean by better colour quality?

Of course they are two different photos with different lighting but I suspect that were the images reversed the same difference would still hold for the 645

So being different photos with different lighting is not particularly relevant when distinguishing the difference?

I suggest not making more out of my comments than there is on face value. These are simply two different photos from two different cameras. You asked for an opinion, I responded.

 

[Cafe Racer]

I'm no technical expert . I happen to shoot sometime real estate interiors for my job , mostly for listing sites .

I have seen interiors shot with MF and I was blown away by the quality of the pictures , and one did not need to view at 100% to realize it . By quality I mean the " depth" , colours, 3D rendering, a sharp yet " soft" organic output , simply gorgeous . No way I could achieve this with m4/3 , although I love the format . I've considered buying into MF but I'm semi retired now and don't have the means for it .

When Pentax first came out with a MF, it was amazing to see samples from it posted in the forum. Even reduced to web size there was something obviously different and better compared to the APS-C images. Even before you saw which camera had taken the picture, you just knew.

Pentax 645d, Olympus E-M5iii.

Despite that, I never had a desire for one. The lightness in my wallet would never counteract the heaviness of the camera and lenses.

The difference is readily apparent, IMO.

Can you describe the difference you see?

There is a 3d effect in the details

Is a 3d effect in the details only possible with medium format?

and better color quality in the 645 image.

Can you describe what you mean by better colour quality?

Of course they are two different photos with different lighting but I suspect that were the images reversed the same difference would still hold for the 645

So being different photos with different lighting is not particularly relevant when distinguishing the difference?

I suggest not making more out of my comments than there is on face value.

You introduced the idea that there's a difference that's readily apparent so I'm trying to understand what it is. Ahaslett doesn't seem to see it.

These are simply two different photos from two different cameras. You asked for an opinion, I responded.

 

[gary0319]

I'm no technical expert . I happen to shoot sometime real estate interiors for my job , mostly for listing sites .

I have seen interiors shot with MF and I was blown away by the quality of the pictures , and one did not need to view at 100% to realize it . By quality I mean the " depth" , colours, 3D rendering, a sharp yet " soft" organic output , simply gorgeous . No way I could achieve this with m4/3 , although I love the format . I've considered buying into MF but I'm semi retired now and don't have the means for it .

When Pentax first came out with a MF, it was amazing to see samples from it posted in the forum. Even reduced to web size there was something obviously different and better compared to the APS-C images. Even before you saw which camera had taken the picture, you just knew.

Pentax 645d, Olympus E-M5iii.

Despite that, I never had a desire for one. The lightness in my wallet would never counteract the heaviness of the camera and lenses.

The difference is readily apparent, IMO.

Can you describe the difference you see?

There is a 3d effect in the details

Is a 3d effect in the details only possible with medium format?

and better color quality in the 645 image.

Can you describe what you mean by better colour quality?

Of course they are two different photos with different lighting but I suspect that were the images reversed the same difference would still hold for the 645

So being different photos with different lighting is not particularly relevant when distinguishing the difference?

I suggest not making more out of my comments than there is on face value.

You introduced the idea that there's a difference that's readily apparent so I'm trying to understand what it is. Ahaslett doesn't seem to see it.

These are simply two different photos from two different cameras. You asked for an opinion, I responded.

Perhaps I don’t look at images as “clinically “ as you or Andrew. I see a difference in his two images also. Kind of getting a feeling of being in the image, rather than looking at the image.

 

[ahaslett]

I'm no technical expert . I happen to shoot sometime real estate interiors for my job , mostly for listing sites .

I have seen interiors shot with MF and I was blown away by the quality of the pictures , and one did not need to view at 100% to realize it . By quality I mean the " depth" , colours, 3D rendering, a sharp yet " soft" organic output , simply gorgeous . No way I could achieve this with m4/3 , although I love the format . I've considered buying into MF but I'm semi retired now and don't have the means for it .

When Pentax first came out with a MF, it was amazing to see samples from it posted in the forum. Even reduced to web size there was something obviously different and better compared to the APS-C images. Even before you saw which camera had taken the picture, you just knew.

Pentax 645d, Olympus E-M5iii.

Despite that, I never had a desire for one. The lightness in my wallet would never counteract the heaviness of the camera and lenses.

The difference is readily apparent, IMO.

Can you describe the difference you see?

There is a 3d effect in the details

Is a 3d effect in the details only possible with medium format?

and better color quality in the 645 image.

Can you describe what you mean by better colour quality?

Of course they are two different photos with different lighting but I suspect that were the images reversed the same difference would still hold for the 645

So being different photos with different lighting is not particularly relevant when distinguishing the difference?

I suggest not making more out of my comments than there is on face value.

You introduced the idea that there's a difference that's readily apparent so I'm trying to understand what it is. Ahaslett doesn't seem to see it.

These are simply two different photos from two different cameras. You asked for an opinion, I responded.

Perhaps I don’t look at images as “clinically “ as you or Andrew. I see a difference in his two images also. Kind of getting a feeling of being in the image, rather than looking at the image.

Which looks better?

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'm no technical expert . I happen to shoot sometime real estate interiors for my job , mostly for listing sites .

I have seen interiors shot with MF and I was blown away by the quality of the pictures , and one did not need to view at 100% to realize it . By quality I mean the " depth" , colours, 3D rendering, a sharp yet " soft" organic output , simply gorgeous . No way I could achieve this with m4/3 , although I love the format . I've considered buying into MF but I'm semi retired now and don't have the means for it .

When Pentax first came out with a MF, it was amazing to see samples from it posted in the forum. Even reduced to web size there was something obviously different and better compared to the APS-C images. Even before you saw which camera had taken the picture, you just knew.

Pentax 645d, Olympus E-M5iii.

Despite that, I never had a desire for one. The lightness in my wallet would never counteract the heaviness of the camera and lenses.

The difference is readily apparent, IMO.

Can you describe the difference you see?

There is a 3d effect in the details

Is a 3d effect in the details only possible with medium format?

and better color quality in the 645 image.

Can you describe what you mean by better colour quality?

Of course they are two different photos with different lighting but I suspect that were the images reversed the same difference would still hold for the 645

So being different photos with different lighting is not particularly relevant when distinguishing the difference?

I suggest not making more out of my comments than there is on face value.

You introduced the idea that there's a difference that's readily apparent so I'm trying to understand what it is. Ahaslett doesn't seem to see it.

These are simply two different photos from two different cameras. You asked for an opinion, I responded.

Perhaps I don’t look at images as “clinically “ as you or Andrew. I see a difference in his two images also. Kind of getting a feeling of being in the image, rather than looking at the image.

Do you attribute the difference you see in his two images to the camera format, one being full frame and the other being micro 4/3rds?

 

[gary0319]

I'm no technical expert . I happen to shoot sometime real estate interiors for my job , mostly for listing sites .

I have seen interiors shot with MF and I was blown away by the quality of the pictures , and one did not need to view at 100% to realize it . By quality I mean the " depth" , colours, 3D rendering, a sharp yet " soft" organic output , simply gorgeous . No way I could achieve this with m4/3 , although I love the format . I've considered buying into MF but I'm semi retired now and don't have the means for it .

When Pentax first came out with a MF, it was amazing to see samples from it posted in the forum. Even reduced to web size there was something obviously different and better compared to the APS-C images. Even before you saw which camera had taken the picture, you just knew.

Pentax 645d, Olympus E-M5iii.

Despite that, I never had a desire for one. The lightness in my wallet would never counteract the heaviness of the camera and lenses.

The difference is readily apparent, IMO.

Can you describe the difference you see?

There is a 3d effect in the details

Is a 3d effect in the details only possible with medium format?

and better color quality in the 645 image.

Can you describe what you mean by better colour quality?

Of course they are two different photos with different lighting but I suspect that were the images reversed the same difference would still hold for the 645

So being different photos with different lighting is not particularly relevant when distinguishing the difference?

I suggest not making more out of my comments than there is on face value.

You introduced the idea that there's a difference that's readily apparent so I'm trying to understand what it is. Ahaslett doesn't seem to see it.

These are simply two different photos from two different cameras. You asked for an opinion, I responded.

Perhaps I don’t look at images as “clinically “ as you or Andrew. I see a difference in his two images also. Kind of getting a feeling of being in the image, rather than looking at the image.

Which looks better?

Andrew

The Sony pic gives me more of that in-the-moment feeling. Not as much as the other two images, but still there. That's not to say that I haven't gotten or seen MFT images that gave the same feeling. Too many variables to make any kind of blanket conclusion, IMO.

 

[gary0319]

I'm no technical expert . I happen to shoot sometime real estate interiors for my job , mostly for listing sites .

I have seen interiors shot with MF and I was blown away by the quality of the pictures , and one did not need to view at 100% to realize it . By quality I mean the " depth" , colours, 3D rendering, a sharp yet " soft" organic output , simply gorgeous . No way I could achieve this with m4/3 , although I love the format . I've considered buying into MF but I'm semi retired now and don't have the means for it .

When Pentax first came out with a MF, it was amazing to see samples from it posted in the forum. Even reduced to web size there was something obviously different and better compared to the APS-C images. Even before you saw which camera had taken the picture, you just knew.

Pentax 645d, Olympus E-M5iii.

Despite that, I never had a desire for one. The lightness in my wallet would never counteract the heaviness of the camera and lenses.

The difference is readily apparent, IMO.

Can you describe the difference you see?

There is a 3d effect in the details

Is a 3d effect in the details only possible with medium format?

and better color quality in the 645 image.

Can you describe what you mean by better colour quality?

Of course they are two different photos with different lighting but I suspect that were the images reversed the same difference would still hold for the 645

So being different photos with different lighting is not particularly relevant when distinguishing the difference?

I suggest not making more out of my comments than there is on face value.

You introduced the idea that there's a difference that's readily apparent so I'm trying to understand what it is. Ahaslett doesn't seem to see it.

These are simply two different photos from two different cameras. You asked for an opinion, I responded.

Perhaps I don’t look at images as “clinically “ as you or Andrew. I see a difference in his two images also. Kind of getting a feeling of being in the image, rather than looking at the image.

Do you attribute the difference you see in his two images to the camera format, one being full frame and the other being micro 4/3rds?

I've never owned a Full Frame camera since I moved away from film decades ago, first APSC and then MFT. So, I'm not one to make any such determination.

 

[Cafe Racer]

The settings aren't equivalent, for example at f9 the MFT image will have noticeable diffraction (and it does). The subjects and lighting are different. Not sure why the images weren't at base ISO.

I can't see any obvious difference personally - neither look that good. I'd also say they were jpegs, because I would adjust the tone curves if I'd shot these RAW.

Gary0319 says the difference is readily apparent. What do you think he's seeing that you can't?

Well, I can see differences between shots with 20Mpix MFT and 61Mpix FF, and definite differences due to lenses.

I really can't say what Gary can see that I can't. It doesn't help that neither image is that striking in terms of IQ/impact.

If we are comparing different images, how about:

View attachment f97240b57ce5488b968d50825d35b0d4.jpg



Pretty much every element different and I'm not so happy with the way the RAW processor worked on the first one, to the point that I upgraded Capture One to be able to use it with that (new) camera.

Does one of these look better to you?

Does one look better? Overall I think the second image from the OM-5 looks better because I prefer the composition and interior, although I don't like the overexposure on the top window with the purple fringing. There's too much 'negative' space in the foreground of the Sony image for my taste and the interior is too distant, so lacks impact.

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'm no technical expert . I happen to shoot sometime real estate interiors for my job , mostly for listing sites .

I have seen interiors shot with MF and I was blown away by the quality of the pictures , and one did not need to view at 100% to realize it . By quality I mean the " depth" , colours, 3D rendering, a sharp yet " soft" organic output , simply gorgeous . No way I could achieve this with m4/3 , although I love the format . I've considered buying into MF but I'm semi retired now and don't have the means for it .

When Pentax first came out with a MF, it was amazing to see samples from it posted in the forum. Even reduced to web size there was something obviously different and better compared to the APS-C images. Even before you saw which camera had taken the picture, you just knew.

Pentax 645d, Olympus E-M5iii.

Despite that, I never had a desire for one. The lightness in my wallet would never counteract the heaviness of the camera and lenses.

The difference is readily apparent, IMO.

Can you describe the difference you see?

There is a 3d effect in the details

Is a 3d effect in the details only possible with medium format?

and better color quality in the 645 image.

Can you describe what you mean by better colour quality?

Of course they are two different photos with different lighting but I suspect that were the images reversed the same difference would still hold for the 645

So being different photos with different lighting is not particularly relevant when distinguishing the difference?

I suggest not making more out of my comments than there is on face value.

You introduced the idea that there's a difference that's readily apparent so I'm trying to understand what it is. Ahaslett doesn't seem to see it.

These are simply two different photos from two different cameras. You asked for an opinion, I responded.

Perhaps I don’t look at images as “clinically “ as you or Andrew. I see a difference in his two images also. Kind of getting a feeling of being in the image, rather than looking at the image.

Which looks better?

Andrew

The Sony pic gives me more of that in-the-moment feeling.

That's interesting because I think the complete opposite. The interior of the Sony image is too distant for me to feel immersed in the image. It shows how subjective these things can be.

Not as much as the other two images, but still there. That's not to say that I haven't gotten or seen MFT images that gave the same feeling. Too many variables to make any kind of blanket conclusion, IMO.

 

[gary0319]

I'm no technical expert . I happen to shoot sometime real estate interiors for my job , mostly for listing sites .

I have seen interiors shot with MF and I was blown away by the quality of the pictures , and one did not need to view at 100% to realize it . By quality I mean the " depth" , colours, 3D rendering, a sharp yet " soft" organic output , simply gorgeous . No way I could achieve this with m4/3 , although I love the format . I've considered buying into MF but I'm semi retired now and don't have the means for it .

When Pentax first came out with a MF, it was amazing to see samples from it posted in the forum. Even reduced to web size there was something obviously different and better compared to the APS-C images. Even before you saw which camera had taken the picture, you just knew.

Pentax 645d, Olympus E-M5iii.

Despite that, I never had a desire for one. The lightness in my wallet would never counteract the heaviness of the camera and lenses.

The difference is readily apparent, IMO.

Can you describe the difference you see?

There is a 3d effect in the details

Is a 3d effect in the details only possible with medium format?

and better color quality in the 645 image.

Can you describe what you mean by better colour quality?

Of course they are two different photos with different lighting but I suspect that were the images reversed the same difference would still hold for the 645

So being different photos with different lighting is not particularly relevant when distinguishing the difference?

I suggest not making more out of my comments than there is on face value.

You introduced the idea that there's a difference that's readily apparent so I'm trying to understand what it is. Ahaslett doesn't seem to see it.

These are simply two different photos from two different cameras. You asked for an opinion, I responded.

Perhaps I don’t look at images as “clinically “ as you or Andrew. I see a difference in his two images also. Kind of getting a feeling of being in the image, rather than looking at the image.

Which looks better?

Andrew

The Sony pic gives me more of that in-the-moment feeling.

That's interesting because I think the complete opposite. The interior of the Sony image is too distant for me to feel immersed in the image. It shows how subjective these things can be.

Having read your response to Andrew, I came to the same conclusion.... we all see things differently. But, when it's all said and done, it's how the photographer sees his/her image that counts, IMO. One can argue that it might be how the client sees the photographers work that counts. But I'll submit if the client didn't like the work the photographer did in the past... well, buyer beware.

Not as much as the other two images, but still there. That's not to say that I haven't gotten or seen MFT images that gave the same feeling. Too many variables to make any kind of blanket conclusion, IMO.

 

[Cafe Racer]

I'm no technical expert . I happen to shoot sometime real estate interiors for my job , mostly for listing sites .

I have seen interiors shot with MF and I was blown away by the quality of the pictures , and one did not need to view at 100% to realize it . By quality I mean the " depth" , colours, 3D rendering, a sharp yet " soft" organic output , simply gorgeous . No way I could achieve this with m4/3 , although I love the format . I've considered buying into MF but I'm semi retired now and don't have the means for it .

When Pentax first came out with a MF, it was amazing to see samples from it posted in the forum. Even reduced to web size there was something obviously different and better compared to the APS-C images. Even before you saw which camera had taken the picture, you just knew.

Pentax 645d, Olympus E-M5iii.

Despite that, I never had a desire for one. The lightness in my wallet would never counteract the heaviness of the camera and lenses.

The difference is readily apparent, IMO.

Can you describe the difference you see?

There is a 3d effect in the details

Is a 3d effect in the details only possible with medium format?

and better color quality in the 645 image.

Can you describe what you mean by better colour quality?

Of course they are two different photos with different lighting but I suspect that were the images reversed the same difference would still hold for the 645

So being different photos with different lighting is not particularly relevant when distinguishing the difference?

I suggest not making more out of my comments than there is on face value.

You introduced the idea that there's a difference that's readily apparent so I'm trying to understand what it is. Ahaslett doesn't seem to see it.

These are simply two different photos from two different cameras. You asked for an opinion, I responded.

Perhaps I don’t look at images as “clinically “ as you or Andrew. I see a difference in his two images also. Kind of getting a feeling of being in the image, rather than looking at the image.

Do you attribute the difference you see in his two images to the camera format, one being full frame and the other being micro 4/3rds?

I've never owned a Full Frame camera since I moved away from film decades ago, first APSC and then MFT. So, I'm not one to make any such determination.

What would you attribute the "feeling of being in the image" to?