Am I missing something?

[Annie Ng]

First things first, I am not trolling nor trying to start an equivalency war. I’ve spent a lot of time asking questions about this topic and finally had the opportunity to test out some examples myself (rather than just getting verbal/written feedback and watching/reading reviews). I genuinely want to share my personal findings on comparing two different cameras and get some feedback, because I feel like I might be missing something. And yes, I am comparing a full-frame with a micro 4/3’s. (If that frustrates you, and you don’t want to have an adult conversation about the comparison, please stop reading, and move onto a post that improves your day).

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. However, for my personal use, I don’t consider that very much. Especially, if I gain significantly better image quality with the FF Canon…then I’m willing to increase a little extra weight to my pack.

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

 

[Captive18]

If a tree fell and no one heard it falling, did it make any sound?

If the DR difference is not visible, is there no difference?

Comparing JPG for DR is like putting on the ear plug so that one cannot hear the tree falling as JPEG has at about 10 stop of DR when displayed on 8 bit monitors/

What the camera's DR range can do for you is how much you can push or pull shadows and highlight.

The below screen capture shows the difference as I applied 3 stop "exposure" and 20 highlight and -20 shadow, using DxO PL4.

The screen shot shows the areas with clipped highlight and crushed shadow.


M1.3


R5

That’s with trying to push and pull the Jpg’s posted right? I’d be more interested in seeing this test on the RAW’s. Thanks for the idea!

 

[mostlyboringphotog]

Yes, I worked with the posted JPG files. I should have added "even with JPG the difference can be shown".

Please, let us know what you come up with RAW files.

 

[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.

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

 

[jwilliams]

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

Not any more than with m43 or any other format. If you had to use f5.6 to get the DOF necessary with m43 then you just use f11 with FF. If SS is the same ISO is 2 stops higher which means the FF sensor soaks up the same light.

It is a totally wrong misconception that m43 has some sort of advantage over larger formats when you want more DOF in a shot.

Maybe she just likes to use a tripod for compositional purposes. Maybe she was focus bracketing for some reason that mattered to her. Regardless, she was not at any sort of DOF disadvantage vs. m43 because she was using FF camera.

 

[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?

Not right. It is incredible how important the tone curve is in the reproduction of both colour and contrast. Having s frame of reference, a target, really does help. That is what so many here don’t understand, you can buy your way to a particular look, but you will probably never get there, or you can set a benchmark and use your tools to bring yourself as close as you can.

Seems rather odd to me you need a bigger sensor camera to set such target. I mean, what do people use as reference when they are trying to control the tones of an image of any sensor (think biggest sensor you can find in a consumer camera- MF).

Sorry raised, are you implying FF doesn’t look different?

I have absolutely no idea under which logic questioning the need for a larger format as a target to post process your m43rds RAW file to have an ideal reference "implies that FF doesn't look different "

I mean, what you say as workflow means someone would have to buy a FF or MF camera to get a target reference? That sounds very odd to me! I wonder how m43rds people that get good photos do it without having a FF camera around.

Again you must be implying there is no visible difference.

No, read above.

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

sure, you could just reduce contrast, et, voila! You have garbage. But if we are trying to produce something specific then yes a frame of reference helps.

I am hardly suggesting you just reduce the contrast. I am merely quoting what you said you wanted to do.

You didn’t suggest anything useful.

Eh? Maybe you didn't suggest anything useful?

The absolute terror here of showing how slight the differences between formats are is astonishing!

LOL. It's amazing how you twist it into that. Not terror, but that m43rds inf. thing is very strong indeed . Dont' confuse pointing out faulty reasoning with terror

no raised, you should be curious, instead you seem to have an allergy to direct comparisons.

No allergies, I have pointed over and over the constant trying to justify it looks the same. Moreover, you seem to be contradicting yourself in your reply here.

Either larger formats have a different look, or they don’t. If they don’t, why do people keep claiming they do, and if they do what is wrong with exploring how to Mimic that look?

I don't need "a comparison" to know or not know. I have done it, many have done it, it's factual. Don't confuse "terror" with pointing out faulty tests and argumentation, plus constant over justification that there's "no discernible" or "important" difference (which is usually have you have claimed over and over in your threads).

That constant over justification is what goes into m43rds inferiority complex territory

But going back to the logic of this subthread I find phenomenally odd- that you somehow need a higher quality sensor to give you a target, to then edit your m43rdrs RAW file to taste and final output? What??!!!

--
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

 

[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?

--
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

 

[Raist3d]

If a tree fell and no one heard it falling, did it make any sound?

If the DR difference is not visible, is there no difference?

Comparing JPG for DR is like putting on the ear plug so that one cannot hear the tree falling as JPEG has at about 10 stop of DR when displayed on 8 bit monitors/

What the camera's DR range can do for you is how much you can push or pull shadows and highlight.

The below screen capture shows the difference as I applied 3 stop "exposure" and 20 highlight and -20 shadow, using DxO PL4.

The screen shot shows the areas with clipped highlight and crushed shadow.


M1.3


R5

That’s with trying to push and pull the Jpg’s posted right? I’d be more interested in seeing this test on the RAW’s. Thanks for the idea!

You will def. see this with the RAWS. Even more so. Also I think the R5 can capture HEIC files which are richer than JPEGS.

--
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

 

[Raist3d]

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

Not any more than with m43 or any other format. If you had to use f5.6 to get the DOF necessary with m43 then you just use f11 with FF. If SS is the same ISO is 2 stops higher which means the FF sensor soaks up the same light.

It is a totally wrong misconception that m43 has some sort of advantage over larger formats when you want more DOF in a shot.

This, right here. That's one thing not understood in this forum. What m43rds does give you the more DOF at usually smaller size. The advantage of the fact FF can shoot the same DOF of m43rs or shorter DOF options m43rds can't have is missed.

Maybe she just likes to use a tripod for compositional purposes. Maybe she was focus bracketing for some reason that mattered to her. Regardless, she was not at any sort of DOF disadvantage vs. m43 because she was using FF camera.

 

[unhappymeal]

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

Not any more than with m43 or any other format. If you had to use f5.6 to get the DOF necessary with m43 then you just use f11 with FF. If SS is the same ISO is 2 stops higher which means the FF sensor soaks up the same light.

It is a totally wrong misconception that m43 has some sort of advantage over larger formats when you want more DOF in a shot.

This, right here. That's one thing not understood in this forum. What m43rds does give you the more DOF at usually smaller size. The advantage of the fact FF can shoot the same DOF of m43rs or shorter DOF options m43rds can't have is missed.

Maybe she just likes to use a tripod for compositional purposes. Maybe she was focus bracketing for some reason that mattered to her. Regardless, she was not at any sort of DOF disadvantage vs. m43 because she was using FF camera.

Sure, but it's all a balancing act. If you close down the aperture to get deeper DoF, you're going to need to need a slower shutter speed (potentially introduce motion blur when you don't want it) or higher ISO (more noise/less DR and there goes your larger sensor advantage) to get the same exposure. Sometimes, this is an acceptable solution. Other times, it's not.

 

[Jeff]

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

Not any more than with m43 or any other format. If you had to use f5.6 to get the DOF necessary with m43 then you just use f11 with FF. If SS is the same ISO is 2 stops higher which means the FF sensor soaks up the same light.

It is a totally wrong misconception that m43 has some sort of advantage over larger formats when you want more DOF in a shot.

Maybe she just likes to use a tripod for compositional purposes. Maybe she was focus bracketing for some reason that mattered to her. Regardless, she was not at any sort of DOF disadvantage vs. m43 because she was using FF camera.

This is precisely the point I was trying to make a few posts above this one. There is no DOF advantage to a smaller format.

One advantage of the larger format is a lower ISO enabling a slower shutter and more light. The brilliant HHHR feature, however, while not good for scenes with motion, does partly close the gap for static scenes.

 

[Raist3d]

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

Not any more than with m43 or any other format. If you had to use f5.6 to get the DOF necessary with m43 then you just use f11 with FF. If SS is the same ISO is 2 stops higher which means the FF sensor soaks up the same light.

It is a totally wrong misconception that m43 has some sort of advantage over larger formats when you want more DOF in a shot.

This, right here. That's one thing not understood in this forum. What m43rds does give you the more DOF at usually smaller size. The advantage of the fact FF can shoot the same DOF of m43rs or shorter DOF options m43rds can't have is missed.

Maybe she just likes to use a tripod for compositional purposes. Maybe she was focus bracketing for some reason that mattered to her. Regardless, she was not at any sort of DOF disadvantage vs. m43 because she was using FF camera.

Sure, but it's all a balancing act. If you close down the aperture to get deeper DoF, you're going to need to need a slower shutter speed (potentially introduce motion blur when you don't want it) or higher ISO (more noise/less DR and there goes your larger sensor advantage) to get the same exposure. Sometimes, this is an acceptable solution. Other times, it's not.

Nothing you said changes what I said. I talked about having the option. FF gives you those options. The bigger shooting envelope doesn't change- where you don't see an acceptable solution for FF here, neither would m43rds have the option either.

Now, a good case you can make is, if you are always shooting at m43rds DOF or often, then maybe it makes the case for getting m43rds to get a smaller size. Likewise, if you are always trying to get shorter DOF in m43rds by going with the bigger primes all the time, you are probably best served by FF.

 

[orca_kkl]

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. . .

 

[mostlyboringphotog]

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

Not any more than with m43 or any other format. If you had to use f5.6 to get the DOF necessary with m43 then you just use f11 with FF. If SS is the same ISO is 2 stops higher which means the FF sensor soaks up the same light.

It is a totally wrong misconception that m43 has some sort of advantage over larger formats when you want more DOF in a shot.

Maybe she just likes to use a tripod for compositional purposes. Maybe she was focus bracketing for some reason that mattered to her. Regardless, she was not at any sort of DOF disadvantage vs. m43 because she was using FF camera.

And/or she was using slower SS and thus the tripod ;-)

 

[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?

 

[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 .

 

[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.

 

[Raist3d]

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?

No, not if we are talking about straight forward sensor data. What the better sensor will allow a photographer to do is with with a higher quality of digital capture all the situations you mentioned above.

Of course, whether that difference mattered to a particular photographer in those situations, it's a different story.

 

[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?

 

[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.

Many people do this.

Who?

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.

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.

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

The biggest irony is the contradiction in argumentation this represents- that there's nothing missing from FF using m43rds. I mean, if we have to look at FF as a target to achieve, that means there's a difference.

--
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