Am I missing something?

[mostlyboringphotog]

One final point, dont be afraid of ISO 100 or 64, consider them shadow priority and watch for highlight clipping, especially in your sunset style shots. You will find it easier to manage DR and probably get cleaner shadows.

Interesting. If I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that I could push ISO 100 or 64 on the E-M1.3, don't ETTR as much (as I would in ISO 200) and I can pull the shadows up more in post (without noise consequence). Is that right?

Yup, ISO 200 is very conservative and leaves a lot in the highlights for recovery in RAW (more than almost any other brand to my testing). if you shoot ISO 64 and use the histogram, clipped is clipped so you can better manage the DR.

Interesting. I’ll have to give that a go. Thank you for the tip.

I did notice that could pull much more back in the highlights with the E-M1.3 than with the R5. From what I saw, the R5 had less tolerance for highlight recovery…surprisingly so.

Anon has a highlight priority mode (at least several models before that one do so would be surprised if that one doesn’t) the dr total is the same- they shift the dr window for you

so don’t be surprised if a camera recovers less highlight but it recovers more shadow - that may still be equal or more DR no would expect the canon to do highlight priority without sacrificing shadows much and still outdo the em1

You’re right, from what I saw, it did seem to pull up more from the shadows. I didn’t necessarily fault it for the highlights, just noticed it handled the highlights differently than other digital cameras. I started to expose LESS to the right than what I had grown accustomed too.

Again, set the camera to highlight priority and perhaps it will do more to what you are used to. Pentax has this feature also, and Fuji also has it as you set DR 200% and DR 400% - in particular the later will give you insane highlight recovery. Of course the shadows will start to suffer- the total DR of the sensor doesn't change.

Yes, the total DR of a given sensor does not change; however R5 has 14bit ADC whereas M1.3 has 12 bit ADC. the difference readily measurable in photonstophoto chart .

I don't think we are saying things that are mutually exclusive. In fact having 14-bit RAW is part of what allows the bigger DR of the bigger sensor to be represented.

Yes - I was amplifying and not disagreeing - I wondered if someone could misconstrue "the total DR of the sensor doesn't change." to mean all the sensors have same DR.

Perhaps, my second guessing was not needed.

 

[Raist3d]

One final point, dont be afraid of ISO 100 or 64, consider them shadow priority and watch for highlight clipping, especially in your sunset style shots. You will find it easier to manage DR and probably get cleaner shadows.

Interesting. If I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that I could push ISO 100 or 64 on the E-M1.3, don't ETTR as much (as I would in ISO 200) and I can pull the shadows up more in post (without noise consequence). Is that right?

Yup, ISO 200 is very conservative and leaves a lot in the highlights for recovery in RAW (more than almost any other brand to my testing). if you shoot ISO 64 and use the histogram, clipped is clipped so you can better manage the DR.

Interesting. I’ll have to give that a go. Thank you for the tip.

I did notice that could pull much more back in the highlights with the E-M1.3 than with the R5. From what I saw, the R5 had less tolerance for highlight recovery…surprisingly so.

Anon has a highlight priority mode (at least several models before that one do so would be surprised if that one doesn’t) the dr total is the same- they shift the dr window for you

so don’t be surprised if a camera recovers less highlight but it recovers more shadow - that may still be equal or more DR no would expect the canon to do highlight priority without sacrificing shadows much and still outdo the em1

You’re right, from what I saw, it did seem to pull up more from the shadows. I didn’t necessarily fault it for the highlights, just noticed it handled the highlights differently than other digital cameras. I started to expose LESS to the right than what I had grown accustomed too.

Again, set the camera to highlight priority and perhaps it will do more to what you are used to. Pentax has this feature also, and Fuji also has it as you set DR 200% and DR 400% - in particular the later will give you insane highlight recovery. Of course the shadows will start to suffer- the total DR of the sensor doesn't change.

Yes, the total DR of a given sensor does not change; however R5 has 14bit ADC whereas M1.3 has 12 bit ADC. the difference readily measurable in photonstophoto chart .

I don't think we are saying things that are mutually exclusive. In fact having 14-bit RAW is part of what allows the bigger DR of the bigger sensor to be represented.

Yes - I was amplifying and not disagreeing - I wondered if someone could misconstrue "the total DR of the sensor doesn't change." to mean all the sensors have same DR.

Perhaps, my second guessing was not needed.

Got it. Yeah, I don't mean to say or imply that by what I said for sure. Only that when people talk about "oh this sensor recovers highlights better therefore has better DR" may not be an accurate statement as the total DR of the sensor is both highlight and shadow recovery. Canon allows you to shift the DR window with the highlight priority mode (so does Pentax). And Fuji gives you yet an extra control over that (DR 400%).

 

[mostlyboringphotog]

Quite frankly the images shown with either camera aren't the best for assessing their differences. Almost everything you shot was backlit and not very detailed so you're really not giving either camera a good chance to show what it can do.

From a personal perspective I have a Panny G9 and Canon R and there are very noticeable IQ differences in the Canons favor.

Making this kind of statement needs a little bit of proof . Got any pics that can substantiate the "very noticeable IQ difference.....

It doesn't matter if they provide "proof". There isn't really an agreed upon standard with which to base claims of "noticable" or "marginal" differences. It's all subjective.

But you must have proof to arrive at a "Subjective" result.. otherwise is is all "Hot Air"..

But how can you prove something that is a personal opinion?

"Personal opinion" does not mean it is beyond "proof".

And there are agreed upon methods in measuring image metrics such as noise, resolution, DR, color gamut, etc are not subjective opinion.

Yep you can certainly measure a difference, the problem is when one throws around terms like "significant" or "meaningless".

The issue is not with if you can measure a difference.

The image quality that one thinks is acceptable is a "subjective opinion" but not the measure of quality.

But couldn't quality also include composition, lighting, location? How do you measure composition?

Yes, they could be part of the "overall image quality" but not affected by the sensor performance. I suppose we could make a case if sensor aspect ratio can affect the "composition" but I don't think that's what you have in mind.

imho, though, even the composition and such can be "graded" by the "experts" who have studied arts and color theories and what not. One could disagree with the experts but should not dismiss them as often dismiss them because they have studied the subject matter as the pointed head academics.

I am acutely aware of "composition" myself because I think I am "composition blind" :-(

 

[Firmware]

PS. I forgot to mention, that recently shooting scenic alongside an FF shooter, I was taken aback watching her shooting landscape. Because I had now forgotten and taken for granted that I had no need to focus bracket for landscape. And is why she was carrying a tripod and taking ages.

So what I lose in astro I can sometimes regain elsewhere ;-)

Your PS was interesting, as I was at the seaside the other day and noticed a few cameras being carried. They were all 35mm. One lade was setting up her tripod on the beach as I walked by. I took a few pics and moved on. Her husband? dog and child waited patiently. I walked to the end of the pier, stopping to take shots and walked back. She was just packing up...It had taken her some 20 minutes plus the weight of the camera and the tripod. She wasn't using an ND filter, so I wondered what she was doing with the tripod as it was a bright sunny day. Then it ocurred to me she was having to focus bracket...I have never really had to consider that with mft

Oddly, I've had to use a tripod because I was having to bracket exposure to get the DR I wanted with MFT, to answer the original question.

 

[victorav]

I think the tone curve plays more of a part here than the DR, I was planning on doing a post on the tone curve in raw and how to get a softer look. It would however require a comparison with FF as a benchmark and that doesn’t go down to well here

Require a comparison to another format? I mean- you can show still the tone curve and how to get a softer look with the raw of a m43 camera without any comparisons to what would be what have yours of somewhere else, right?

I mean, the intent would be to show how to get a softer look with what we have, right? ;-)

I guess you don't really require a comparison to another format.

I can't speak for Ab but if his goal is to achieve a tonal look similar to larger formats using mft, then it would in fact require a comparison.

You don't need a comparison to achieve a good tonal final output with tone techniques. I mean, don't people now how to use what they have on its own merit? If not this means m43rds is truly inferior in workflow/capability somehow.

Heck, I have exhibited work and I never had to apply tonal whatever to the same shot taken in Fuji APSC or FF camera tones. But then maybe some people need a bigger sensor output to show them the way?

Sorry, this just makes no sense. Unless of course, the whole point was to simply make the comparison and not really show tone processing technique . I guess?

No, I'm saying if the goal is to mimic eg ff, then you need a ff image for comparison/ as a reference.

The context is to use tone adjustment techniques to make smooth shadows/transitions. You surely don't need a bigger sensor reference point for this.

You don't need the sensor just an image, and it doesn't have to be your own.

Many people do this.

Who?

I do, I've also seen people mimic mf images using ff. Which is how I got into doing it.

It is true, that good tonal processing doesn't require other formats for comparison, but it can be a good starting point, and one can expand from there.

Sorry, this makes no sense. Nobody needs a bigger sensor to show them the way- what they need is the vision of what they are trying to do.

If for example you like the tonal transitions in an r5 image, and want to recreate it on an em1 you can use the r5 image as a reference and adjust. Then you can take what you learned and apply to others.

Not everyone may have the same grasp of managing tones as you.

By vision, do you mean everything must be original in the way you approach taking editing?

You may ask, " why are you trying to mimic another format?" Simply put, because people want to.

That doesn't make sense in this context. And quite frankly it shows imho what's wrong with the approach to begin with without a focus on photography.

Taking an image and trying to recreate the look of another format is part of photography... Just not one you understand.

So we are back then to the possible true intent- just show a comparison to a bigger sensor from m43rds. Again.

Maybe we should just end it here since I don't think I can explain it you well enough.

--
Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- I photograph black cats in coal mines at night...
“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” - George Orwell

 

[mostlyboringphotog]

One final point, dont be afraid of ISO 100 or 64, consider them shadow priority and watch for highlight clipping, especially in your sunset style shots. You will find it easier to manage DR and probably get cleaner shadows.

Interesting. If I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that I could push ISO 100 or 64 on the E-M1.3, don't ETTR as much (as I would in ISO 200) and I can pull the shadows up more in post (without noise consequence). Is that right?

Yup, ISO 200 is very conservative and leaves a lot in the highlights for recovery in RAW (more than almost any other brand to my testing). if you shoot ISO 64 and use the histogram, clipped is clipped so you can better manage the DR.

Interesting. I’ll have to give that a go. Thank you for the tip.

I did notice that could pull much more back in the highlights with the E-M1.3 than with the R5. From what I saw, the R5 had less tolerance for highlight recovery…surprisingly so.

Anon has a highlight priority mode (at least several models before that one do so would be surprised if that one doesn’t) the dr total is the same- they shift the dr window for you

so don’t be surprised if a camera recovers less highlight but it recovers more shadow - that may still be equal or more DR no would expect the canon to do highlight priority without sacrificing shadows much and still outdo the em1

You’re right, from what I saw, it did seem to pull up more from the shadows. I didn’t necessarily fault it for the highlights, just noticed it handled the highlights differently than other digital cameras. I started to expose LESS to the right than what I had grown accustomed too.

Again, set the camera to highlight priority and perhaps it will do more to what you are used to. Pentax has this feature also, and Fuji also has it as you set DR 200% and DR 400% - in particular the later will give you insane highlight recovery. Of course the shadows will start to suffer- the total DR of the sensor doesn't change.

Yes, the total DR of a given sensor does not change; however R5 has 14bit ADC whereas M1.3 has 12 bit ADC. the difference readily measurable in photonstophoto chart .

I don't think we are saying things that are mutually exclusive. In fact having 14-bit RAW is part of what allows the bigger DR of the bigger sensor to be represented.

Yes - I was amplifying and not disagreeing - I wondered if someone could misconstrue "the total DR of the sensor doesn't change." to mean all the sensors have same DR.

Perhaps, my second guessing was not needed.

Got it. Yeah, I don't mean to say or imply that by what I said for sure. Only that when people talk about "oh this sensor recovers highlights better therefore has better DR" may not be an accurate statement as the total DR of the sensor is both highlight and shadow recovery. Canon allows you to shift the DR window with the highlight priority mode (so does Pentax). And Fuji gives you yet an extra control over that (DR 400%).

Highlight recovery and the "highlight protection" to some extent should be, indeed, debunked.

Even DPR recommend using lower ISO than metered to be lifted in PP in the name of highlight protection. After extolling the virtues of ETTR which would clip JPEG highlight since the the highlight can be recovered from the RAW.

One can get "more" highlight recovery by simply dialing in the - EV. Of course, the shadow recovery suffers. As you said the total DR of the sensor is what it is ;-)

 

[Raist3d]

I think the tone curve plays more of a part here than the DR, I was planning on doing a post on the tone curve in raw and how to get a softer look. It would however require a comparison with FF as a benchmark and that doesn’t go down to well here

Require a comparison to another format? I mean- you can show still the tone curve and how to get a softer look with the raw of a m43 camera without any comparisons to what would be what have yours of somewhere else, right?

I mean, the intent would be to show how to get a softer look with what we have, right? ;-)

I guess you don't really require a comparison to another format.

I can't speak for Ab but if his goal is to achieve a tonal look similar to larger formats using mft, then it would in fact require a comparison.

You don't need a comparison to achieve a good tonal final output with tone techniques. I mean, don't people now how to use what they have on its own merit? If not this means m43rds is truly inferior in workflow/capability somehow.

Heck, I have exhibited work and I never had to apply tonal whatever to the same shot taken in Fuji APSC or FF camera tones. But then maybe some people need a bigger sensor output to show them the way?

Sorry, this just makes no sense. Unless of course, the whole point was to simply make the comparison and not really show tone processing technique . I guess?

No, I'm saying if the goal is to mimic eg ff, then you need a ff image for comparison/ as a reference.

The context is to use tone adjustment techniques to make smooth shadows/transitions. You surely don't need a bigger sensor reference point for this.

You don't need the sensor just an image, and it doesn't have to be your own.

Seems like a pursuit of someone else's vision.

Many people do this.

Who?

I do, I've also seen people mimic mf images using ff. Which is how I got into doing it.

I know of no photographer that has exhibited doing this. What I see is photographers doing what they can to maximize what they are using.

It is true, that good tonal processing doesn't require other formats for comparison, but it can be a good starting point, and one can expand from there.

Sorry, this makes no sense. Nobody needs a bigger sensor to show them the way- what they need is the vision of what they are trying to do.

If for example you like the tonal transitions in an r5 image, and want to recreate it on an em1 you can use the r5 image as a reference and adjust. Then you can take what you learned and apply to others.

You can like what's best for your RAW file and vision. That almost suggest you need a bigger sensor to show you the way to your vision of what you currently have. That makes zero sense to me.

Not everyone may have the same grasp of managing tones as you.

But that's not the point! ( and I am not a master at everything there ). The point is that using tonal techniques to get what you want and smooth transitions of any sensor is sort of a universal skill- you don't need a particular target.

By vision, do you mean everything must be original in the way you approach taking editing?

By vision means that you are pursuing your work, w hat you want to do and not some sort of reference copy. I mean, we are talking about showing tonal techniques to get better tones shadows on m43rds, why do you need a FF reference for that/

You may ask, " why are you trying to mimic another format?" Simply put, because people want to.

That doesn't make sense in this context. And quite frankly it shows imho what's wrong with the approach to begin with without a focus on photography.

Taking an image and trying to recreate the look of another format is part of photography... Just not one you understand.

Which photography? What masters of photography are obsessed doing this?

So we are back then to the possible true intent- just show a comparison to a bigger sensor from m43rds. Again.

Maybe we should just end it here since I don't think I can explain it you well enough.

I think in the context of what's being discussed it makes zero sense. Perhaps the possible original intent I mentioned, is what makes some sense

 

[Jeff]

PS. I forgot to mention, that recently shooting scenic alongside an FF shooter, I was taken aback watching her shooting landscape. Because I had now forgotten and taken for granted that I had no need to focus bracket for landscape. And is why she was carrying a tripod and taking ages.

So what I lose in astro I can sometimes regain elsewhere ;-)

Your PS was interesting, as I was at the seaside the other day and noticed a few cameras being carried. They were all 35mm. One lade was setting up her tripod on the beach as I walked by. I took a few pics and moved on. Her husband? dog and child waited patiently. I walked to the end of the pier, stopping to take shots and walked back. She was just packing up...It had taken her some 20 minutes plus the weight of the camera and the tripod. She wasn't using an ND filter, so I wondered what she was doing with the tripod as it was a bright sunny day. Then it ocurred to me she was having to focus bracket...I have never really had to consider that with mft

Oddly, I've had to use a tripod because I was having to bracket exposure to get the DR I wanted with MFT, to answer the original question.

One nice thing about Oly's is handheld HDR and HHHR shooting.

--
Jeff
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jck_photos/sets/

 

[Dennis]

However, personally, (with what I’m seeing in my personal use real world, quick shot, examples so far), I just can’t see a big difference which would justify switching to the Canon system. Also, if the E-M1.3 sensor can keep up with the R5, that’s pretty impressive! With all that said, am I missing something???

IMO, FF offers the *potential* for greater image quality (dynamic range, detail, mostly visible in larger print sizes) *BUT* you have to exploit that with the right technique and lenses. Based on your use of roughly similar kits (and it only makes sense for a given photographer to compare what he or she would actually want to use!) it seems there's little advantage to FF. You mention the Canon 85/1.2 ... a system with an 85/1.8 (like Nikon Z or Sony FE) would probably show much more detail on a high res sensor than you can get with 20MP ... but then again, do you need it ?

- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

 

[victorav]

Quite frankly the images shown with either camera aren't the best for assessing their differences. Almost everything you shot was backlit and not very detailed so you're really not giving either camera a good chance to show what it can do.

From a personal perspective I have a Panny G9 and Canon R and there are very noticeable IQ differences in the Canons favor.

Making this kind of statement needs a little bit of proof . Got any pics that can substantiate the "very noticeable IQ difference.....

It doesn't matter if they provide "proof". There isn't really an agreed upon standard with which to base claims of "noticable" or "marginal" differences. It's all subjective.

But you must have proof to arrive at a "Subjective" result.. otherwise is is all "Hot Air"..

But how can you prove something that is a personal opinion?

"Personal opinion" does not mean it is beyond "proof".

And there are agreed upon methods in measuring image metrics such as noise, resolution, DR, color gamut, etc are not subjective opinion.

Yep you can certainly measure a difference, the problem is when one throws around terms like "significant" or "meaningless".

The issue is not with if you can measure a difference.

The image quality that one thinks is acceptable is a "subjective opinion" but not the measure of quality.

But couldn't quality also include composition, lighting, location? How do you measure composition?

Yes, they could be part of the "overall image quality" but not affected by the sensor performance. I suppose we could make a case if sensor aspect ratio can affect the "composition" but I don't think that's what you have in mind.

imho, though, even the composition and such can be "graded" by the "experts" who have studied arts and color theories and what not. One could disagree with the experts but should not dismiss them as often dismiss them because they have studied the subject matter as the pointed head academics.

True, but it's not as easy a thing to quantify as iso performance for eg.

I am acutely aware of "composition" myself because I think I am "composition blind" :-(

Like you have a hard time seeing a composition?

 

[Photodog2]

Nice photos. One of the few field comparisons I have seen anywhere where the photographer actually bothered to take beautiful images in the right natural light to use in an apples to apples comparison. Most of the time, people will just take photos from their office window, etc. in any kind of light that are horrible from an aesthetic sense, for comparisons even in well known blogs. That's a turn-off to me to even bothering to read when the authors did not even take the effort to actually do photography.

 

[mostlyboringphotog]

Nice photos. One of the few field comparisons I have seen anywhere where the photographer actually bothered to take beautiful images in the right natural light to use in an apples to apples comparison. Most of the time, people will just take photos from their office window, etc. in any kind of light that are horrible from an aesthetic sense, for comparisons even in well known blogs. That's a turn-off to me to even bothering to read when the authors did not even take the effort to actually do photography.

Allow me to quibble a bit - FF and 4/3rd are not apples to apples comparison to begin with. So, apples to apples comparison is not what's going to show the difference.

A car and motorcycle may seem to have no differences, when compared apples to apples (to really make hash of the metaphor, say the comparison is carrying two people on a sunny day) but most would say that is not the comparison that shows the difference of car and motorcycle ;-)

And no one ever claimed that one cannot make a beautiful image with 4/3rd while they can with FF.

 

[mostlyboringphotog]

Quite frankly the images shown with either camera aren't the best for assessing their differences. Almost everything you shot was backlit and not very detailed so you're really not giving either camera a good chance to show what it can do.

From a personal perspective I have a Panny G9 and Canon R and there are very noticeable IQ differences in the Canons favor.

Making this kind of statement needs a little bit of proof . Got any pics that can substantiate the "very noticeable IQ difference.....

It doesn't matter if they provide "proof". There isn't really an agreed upon standard with which to base claims of "noticable" or "marginal" differences. It's all subjective.

But you must have proof to arrive at a "Subjective" result.. otherwise is is all "Hot Air"..

But how can you prove something that is a personal opinion?

"Personal opinion" does not mean it is beyond "proof".

And there are agreed upon methods in measuring image metrics such as noise, resolution, DR, color gamut, etc are not subjective opinion.

Yep you can certainly measure a difference, the problem is when one throws around terms like "significant" or "meaningless".

The issue is not with if you can measure a difference.

The image quality that one thinks is acceptable is a "subjective opinion" but not the measure of quality.

But couldn't quality also include composition, lighting, location? How do you measure composition?

Yes, they could be part of the "overall image quality" but not affected by the sensor performance. I suppose we could make a case if sensor aspect ratio can affect the "composition" but I don't think that's what you have in mind.

imho, though, even the composition and such can be "graded" by the "experts" who have studied arts and color theories and what not. One could disagree with the experts but should not dismiss them as often dismiss them because they have studied the subject matter as the pointed head academics.

True, but it's not as easy a thing to quantify as iso performance for eg.

I am acutely aware of "composition" myself because I think I am "composition blind" :-(

Like you have a hard time seeing a composition?

'fraid so - earlier on I had hard time understanding what image composition meant, even, because I tend to see the elements of the image and miss the relationship between the elements.

Since I took up painting and drawing and understood "negative space" I got much better at understanding the "composition" but it's still a struggle. My wife, on the other hand, pickup all that I miss :-O

 

[dgrogers]

I was looking hard at the Nikon Z6 II before purchasing the E-M1.3. In the end, it was the 12-100 f/4 Pro and the features such as class leading IBIS, Pro Capture, built in ND filter, and hand held high res that kept me with Olympus. I've yet to see a full frame image that has made me regret my decision, and if I did move to a different system I would certainly miss the 12-100 because there are many shots that I would have missed if I had to change lenses to get a different focal length. the 200-800mm equivalent 100-400 has since been added and I would struggle to get that reach with full frame.

I know I could get the Nikon 24-200 or Canon 24-240 for full frame, but those lenses are not in the same league as the Olympus 12-100 and this is a lens I don't want to live without now that I've used it.

In the end, each format has strengths and weaknesses to fit the needs of different people. It's great to have choices, isn't it?

 

[dgrogers]

Why am I comparing these two systems? Because an Olympus E-M1.3 with 12-100 f4 PRO and Oly 100-400 f5.0-6.3 and a Canon R5 with RF 24-105 f4 RF 100-500 are very similar in size and weight. I can also achieve an 800mm FOV with the RF 100-500 if I use the 1.6 crop (and still have similar megapixels). Yes, you gain, at most, a couple pounds with Canon system.

A couple pounds?

https://asia.olympus-imaging.com/product/dslr/em1mk3/spec.html

Weight: 580g

https://asia.canon/en/consumer/eos-r5-body/specification

Weight: 738g

I think the lenses were considered in the system comparison. . .

The Canon system would also be over $3,000 more, and a couple of pounds does make a difference.

 

[RichardCass]

You're not missing anything.

The differences in the real world are negligible.

If people are viewing your images under an illuminated magnifier you should consider a different hobby/profession.

 

[mostlyboringphotog]

I was looking hard at the Nikon Z6 II before purchasing the E-M1.3. In the end, it was the 12-100 f/4 Pro and the features such as class leading IBIS, Pro Capture, built in ND filter, and hand held high res that kept me with Olympus. I've yet to see a full frame image that has made me regret my decision, and if I did move to a different system I would certainly miss the 12-100 because there are many shots that I would have missed if I had to change lenses to get a different focal length. the 200-800mm equivalent 100-400 has since been added and I would struggle to get that reach with full frame.

I think you made an excellent choice. However, allow me to quibble a bit ...

I know I could get the Nikon 24-200 or Canon 24-240 for full frame, but those lenses are not in the same league as the Olympus 12-100 and this is a lens I don't want to live without now that I've used it. - bold added

I think you mean that Nikon24-200 or Canon24-240 are "consumer lens" (with price to show for it) whereas Olympus 12-100 is "Pro" lens but not sure if the image shows the difference of league ;-)

These are sample shots from DPR RAW converted with PL4 without any correction - same size crop ( ~1000x1000), resampled 1000x1000


Oly 12-100

And


Nikon 24-200

I don't think it's a league of difference in image quality.

In the end, each format has strengths and weaknesses to fit the needs of different people. It's great to have choices, isn't it?

Yes it is (great to have choice) and it's even better if the choice are made with the realistic understanding of the equipment.

 

[jalywol]

You're not missing anything.

The differences in the real world are negligible.

You must live in a different real world than I do.

-J

 

[mostlyboringphotog]

You're not missing anything.

The differences in the real world are negligible.

If people are viewing your images under an illuminated magnifier you should consider a different hobby/profession. - bold added

I respectfully disagree - we may enjoy our hoppy a little differently and if that enjoyment is enhanced with FF, and it's not going to take away the rent money, there is no reason to change the hobby or profession - just enjoy FF.

 

[R Johns]

Thank you all. Yes I agree. The "significant" differences are subjective. It also makes sense that differences will be more noticeable at the envelope of shooting requirements. I guess with this personal test, I was able to see where 90% of my photographing is occurring and what I actually need, or can live with, at the envelopes.

Thank you for not blowing this up into unneeded drama.

Be well y'all.

Agreed. Drama sucks!

As you and others have pointed out NP, it really boils down to the use-case.

A prime example (no pun intended) is if you are shooting wildlife at distance and still want a creamy blurred background then FF is going to give you that advantage (so long as it gives you the reach you need to capture your subject). Though, one must confess it comes at a considerable commitment, lugging around the massive/heavy/expensive gear required to do that. Still, there would be no comparison.

However, to juxtapose that point, one of my favorite styles of photography is to press in close to nearby subjects and get a semi-macro composition. Usually, in this case, FF offers no clear advantage for me. Often, I find I need to close in my aperture in order to control my DOF from being too thin. Of course, I then need to boost my ISO to keep shutter speeds satisfactory, negating any benefit of sensor noise or DR. I'll give an example, using two images. One taken with an E-M5 and 45mm f1.8 lens, the other an S1R with the Sigma 135mm f1.8 Art lens. I believe the E-M5 was set to f1.8, ISO 200 at 1/100sec. The S1R was set at f11, ISO 3200 at 1/160sec.


E-M5 - f1.8, ISO 200 at 1/100sec


S1R - f11, ISO 3200 at 1/160sec

If I had taken a shot of the 2nd (S1R) photo scene with my old E-M1 MKIII and 75mm f1.8 lens. I would have captured the exact same composition and DOF with the E-M1 MKIII set at f5.6, ISO 800. And if I took the shot in Handheld High Res mode, I would have essentially matched the resolution of the S1R while obtaining a cleaner image with greater color bit depth. And also while shaving 2.81lbs and more than 1/2 the bulk of the S1R/135 f1.8 combo (Believe me. It matters.)!

So, as I have proposed many times elsewhere, I would submit that I believe the FF and M43 formats are highly complimentary to each other. In fact, through my research, I have come to believe that Canon and Olympus are a perfect match, not only in very similar color profiles, but they even share the same zoom lens ring rotational direction. The latter is actually a really big deal when working with different platforms.

That's my 2 cents, anyway. Great post!

Peace!

Russ

--
~ Greater is He that is within me, than he who is in this world... ~