Comparometer: Compare Picture Side By Side From Different Cameras

[FingerPainter]

Thanks.

Have just been comparing the GX85 to a D810. Can't see any of this D810 "creaminess" that has been talked about.

Well if you cannot tell which of these



and these



is the Gx85 and which is the D810, then MFT is probably the best system for you (unless 1" or camera phone would be better).

Both are JPG comparisons.

 

[FingerPainter]

IR's comparometer compares JPEGs, so you see differences in default JPEG processing rather than differences in what the sensors are able to achieve.

IR frequently uses different exposures at the same ISO, and smaller sensors are usually given a higher exposure when different exposures are used between sensors of different sizes, As a result, the comparometer results are not reliably reflective of performance differences between systems.

 

[LoneTree1]

Interesting thing about the images. As you increase the size and resolution of the monitor (i.e., 27 HD computer monitor to 55 inch 4K TV) the images both improve in quality. Crappy old small low-resolution computer monitors are cruel taskmasters when it comes to viewing anything.

 

[LoneTree1]

IR's comparometer compares JPEGs, so you see differences in default JPEG processing rather than differences in what the sensors are able to achieve.

IR frequently uses different exposures at the same ISO, and smaller sensors are usually given a higher exposure when different exposures are used between sensors of different sizes, As a result, the comparometer results are not reliably reflective of performance differences between systems.

But at higher ISOs, it does give the illusion that higher megapixel cameras produce less noise than they do because of the noise reduction applied to JPEGs in those cameras. It all varies, but JPEGS only (and only recently have JPEGS gotten good in cameras) at low ISOs give a good impression of what the camera is capable of.

 

[TN Args]

in carefully controlled conditions then most cameras will look alike, even ones from several years ago, when you start pushing the raw files or shoot under less than ideal conditions the cameras with the better sensors will usually fare much better

Exactly this.

Despite the never ending threads in this forum that go against that belief.

At the end of the day in great light my em10ii and 6dMkii produce very similar results. Both good enough for my use.

With an unstabilised prime for any static object m43 shoots way ahead of aps-c with its up to 5 extra stops.

The Achilles heel of aps-c is the complete inability of the manufacturers to stabilise the sensor in the standard models.

Full frame does it but that is an area where cost and weight are not factors for the small user base.

But when light fails or its time for astro or its time to really push files the 6D pulls ahead. By a long way.

surely this all depends on the context of the shot, the light levels and shutter speed needed, lenses with stabilisation doe exist and of course you can use a tripod, horses for courses

Well yes, with a lot of messing about and props you can match results.

I am not sure what your point is in relation to comparing the large sensor to the small sensor in the camera when the small sensor can be stabilised easily giving instant extra stops more than the large sensor gains in mere size which is further decreased by an offset in portability. Throw in a tripod and convenience goes completely out of the window.

Not many primes with stabilisation.

Switching myself from Fuji as IBIS is not coming and the 45mm on an E-PL9 saves all that double the focal length shutter speed for my primes and when it hits my 6400 ISO limit the shutter speeds drops back below the selected minimum and you just get a blur.

like i said it's all horses for courses, i've actually made no comparisons between sensor sizes at all just about the quality of the sensors involved and whether one needs some sort of tripod or stabilisation to actually get a shot

I was responding to the comment of the better sensor pulling ahead in low light which is not my experience with aps-c.

this for example is what i was talking about originally, 2 different sensors sizes, same MP similar ISO, one is a m4/3rds camera, can you tell which is which?

If the pictures were taken at 1/10 sec with my 45mm f1.8 and my 35mm f2 aps-c lens handheld or the ISO had to be pushed to get the image steady you would certainly would be able to tell the difference. That is the point I am making.

that's quite specific, if you don't need to do that and shoot in decent light and don't push the processing hard then the differences for the most part are minimal, like i said it's horses for courses...basically shoot the system that allows you to get the results you want

Getting back to the start of the sub thread.

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

in carefully controlled conditions then most cameras will look alike, even ones from several years ago, when you start pushing the raw files or shoot under less than ideal conditions the cameras with the better sensors will usually fare much better

I am just saying not so from my experience when you factor in IBIS where m43 can shoot well ahead of the relative quality of the sensor for primes and even zooms with the extra stabilisation stops.

depends on what you're shooting and whether ibis can make a difference, so that is why i used the word usually rather than absolutely

There's the difference. I find in poor light which is usually indoors where I would prefer a fast prime IBIS usually improves things and makes the lens a great deal faster.

When I use a fast prime with IBIS indoors I usually find myself struggling with subject movement, even for 'stationary' portraits, and find myself needing to use a shutter speed dictated by freezing the subject. For living, indoor subjects, I find 1/100 is a sensible minimum. Get below that, and I can still find blur-free shots of the subject, sure, but interspersed with more and more where the subject is not right due to some sort of motion. Hence more and more where the best shot of all is one of the blurred ones.

This finding more or less knocks IBIS out of the equation. A bigger sensor is the solution. OTOH I am not talking about APS-C and a miserable 0.7 stops of 'advantage', who'd bother?

 

[Pete_W]

Well if you cannot tell which of these



and these



is the Gx85 and which is the D810, then MFT is probably the best system for you (unless 1" or camera phone would be better).

Both are JPG comparisons.

Sure, I can see it there because it's a monochrome panel.

Nonetheless, in real world examples I am really happy with what I get out of my GX85. It perfectly suits my purpose in terms of image quality, and especially suits me in terms of size of equipment and cost, so a Nikon D8xx would be a waste of money for me.

--
Pete

 

[EarthQuake]

in carefully controlled conditions then most cameras will look alike, even ones from several years ago, when you start pushing the raw files or shoot under less than ideal conditions the cameras with the better sensors will usually fare much better

Exactly this.

Despite the never ending threads in this forum that go against that belief.

At the end of the day in great light my em10ii and 6dMkii produce very similar results. Both good enough for my use.

With an unstabilised prime for any static object m43 shoots way ahead of aps-c with its up to 5 extra stops.

The Achilles heel of aps-c is the complete inability of the manufacturers to stabilise the sensor in the standard models.

Full frame does it but that is an area where cost and weight are not factors for the small user base.

But when light fails or its time for astro or its time to really push files the 6D pulls ahead. By a long way.

surely this all depends on the context of the shot, the light levels and shutter speed needed, lenses with stabilisation doe exist and of course you can use a tripod, horses for courses

Well yes, with a lot of messing about and props you can match results.

I am not sure what your point is in relation to comparing the large sensor to the small sensor in the camera when the small sensor can be stabilised easily giving instant extra stops more than the large sensor gains in mere size which is further decreased by an offset in portability. Throw in a tripod and convenience goes completely out of the window.

Not many primes with stabilisation.

Switching myself from Fuji as IBIS is not coming and the 45mm on an E-PL9 saves all that double the focal length shutter speed for my primes and when it hits my 6400 ISO limit the shutter speeds drops back below the selected minimum and you just get a blur.

like i said it's all horses for courses, i've actually made no comparisons between sensor sizes at all just about the quality of the sensors involved and whether one needs some sort of tripod or stabilisation to actually get a shot

I was responding to the comment of the better sensor pulling ahead in low light which is not my experience with aps-c.

this for example is what i was talking about originally, 2 different sensors sizes, same MP similar ISO, one is a m4/3rds camera, can you tell which is which?

If the pictures were taken at 1/10 sec with my 45mm f1.8 and my 35mm f2 aps-c lens handheld or the ISO had to be pushed to get the image steady you would certainly would be able to tell the difference. That is the point I am making.

that's quite specific, if you don't need to do that and shoot in decent light and don't push the processing hard then the differences for the most part are minimal, like i said it's horses for courses...basically shoot the system that allows you to get the results you want

Getting back to the start of the sub thread.

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

in carefully controlled conditions then most cameras will look alike, even ones from several years ago, when you start pushing the raw files or shoot under less than ideal conditions the cameras with the better sensors will usually fare much better

I am just saying not so from my experience when you factor in IBIS where m43 can shoot well ahead of the relative quality of the sensor for primes and even zooms with the extra stabilisation stops.

depends on what you're shooting and whether ibis can make a difference, so that is why i used the word usually rather than absolutely

There's the difference. I find in poor light which is usually indoors where I would prefer a fast prime IBIS usually improves things and makes the lens a great deal faster.

Yeah it really depends. I'm a big proponent of IBIS, and don't see myself ever buying another camera without it, but it is not a silver bullet. There are many situations where it is of little to no help. Basically IBIS is great IF IF IF and IF.

If you're shooting in low light, if your subject is static, if you're not using a tripod, and if the camera/system you're comparing to doesn't have any sort of stabilization. Then IBIS is totally awesome and smaller sensor cameras can shoot above their class. But this is rare, probably less than 1% for most people.

I've been shooting with the original EM1 since it came out. When I want to really drag the shutter speed, and don't have a tripod, IBIS really comes in handy.

But I've been shooting with an A7 II too, and just got an A7 III, and while the IBIS probably isn't quite as effective (I haven't tested it much yet), the low light/noise performance is out of this world. I was taking photos of a friend's 2 year old the other night. Low light, indoors, shutter speed around 1/125 because little kids don't sit still. At 1/125 or faster shutter speeds, unless you're shooting with a tele lens, IBIS is not terribly helpful.

I was shooting with a couple 2.8 primes (24/2.8, 35/2.8) and the 85/1.8. With the 2.8 lenses and the awesome high ISO performance I was able to get such clean files, about what I would expect from my EM1 if I had an F1.2 lens on and could use 2 1/2 stop lower ISO.

Additionally, IBIS doesn't help with low ISO dynamic range. The dynamic range on this A7 III is simply phenomenal. I can boost up the exposure about 5 stops and still have meaningful information at ISO 100. On my EM1 I generally don't like to boost more than 2 stops. With dynamic range this good you can get pseudo HDR type effects with a single exposure. It's really impressive. I don't need to do +5 EV boosts very often, but for every day photography the files are much more malleable in post.

 

[Tommi K1]

so which is with the smaller sensor?



i like fun games

How is it that people here fails to choose proper focal length?

If you like fun games:

• Go out and take photographs with various formats with best of your abilities.
• Give files someone skilled with image editor to process each of the file to best they can.
• Ask them to prepare the files for the various outputs as listed (prints at various sizes and material, output medium of different purpose digitally).
• Ask your friends to some nice place to look at the randomly chosen images.
• Do not tell anyone what format etc is used to take the photos.
• Ask from them that what they like or not like about them.

How many will tell you that the photos (that only you know) taken with smaller format are terrible/noticeable worse than the ones taken with larger format?

 

[Tommi K1]

Because, it is not until you get out there in the real world and shoot real pictures of actual subjects, that you notice the differences.

That is actually when you do not notice anymore the differences. From real world captures the outputs quality differences are balanced so that you can't anymore see the difference because everything since the shutter release will change the image quality radically to be a same.

1) Image editing phase

2) Preparation to final output.

3) Environment and time where images are viewed.

4) The content of the photograph.

Nobody ever talks about the smoother creamy tone and colour transitions of larger sensors or the more "gritty" appearance of a smaller sensor, because you cannot measure this with a test chart.

Because almost no one really cares about that. If photographer fail to take the photograph and edit it and prepare it for the final output, they can get huge differences. A skilled and good photographer, editor and press will even everything out extremely effectively.

The only way to decide what is for you, is to do your own field tests.

That is right. Take the photographs for real world test in the real world output in their real world purpose. No pixel peeping, no raw comparisons, no unprocessed files etc.

High ISO differences like 200 vs 3200 gets even out in most cases. Minor lens sharpness differences are meaningless in most cases. Dynamic range differences negligent in most cases.

 

[Pete_W]

How many will tell you that the photos (that only you know) taken with smaller format are terrible/noticeable worse than the ones taken with larger format?

I am guessing none (unless one is a pixel peeper).

I am a member of a number of Facebook pages centered on photography from past decades. Many of the photos posted by members are just private photos and many have obvious defects in terms of exposure, or grain, colour or sometimes just degradation from age.

But the thing is, so many of these are great photos because they have captured a precious moment in time and provide so much enjoyment for those who view them. It doesn't matter that they are not perfect. It's all about the subject/content.

I do understand that many view their photography as "art" and perhaps that's why there can be so much attention to getting photos that are as near perfect as possible, and this probably drives the desire for bigger sensors, etc.

That's certainly not what I want to pursue with my photography.

 

[Wu Jiaqiu]

so which is with the smaller sensor?



i like fun games

How is it that people here fails to choose proper focal length?

If you like fun games:

• Go out and take photographs with various formats with best of your abilities.
• Give files someone skilled with image editor to process each of the file to best they can.
• Ask them to prepare the files for the various outputs as listed (prints at various sizes and material, output medium of different purpose digitally).
• Ask your friends to some nice place to look at the randomly chosen images.
• Do not tell anyone what format etc is used to take the photos.
• Ask from them that what they like or not like about them.

How many will tell you that the photos (that only you know) taken with smaller format are terrible/noticeable worse than the ones taken with larger format?

you don't know you? Hilarious thing is in those examples m4/3rds is the bigger sensor

--
"My chances of being PM are about as good as the chances of finding Elvis on Mars, or my being reincarnated as an olive."

 

[Tommi K1]

How many will tell you that the photos (that only you know) taken with smaller format are terrible/noticeable worse than the ones taken with larger format?

I am guessing none (unless one is a pixel peeper).

Unless one is to sensors instead photography.... As even those who do stick their noses to print etc do not pixel peep, they admire the image, not the quality of the sensor.

That's certainly not what I want to pursue with my photography.

I don't care so much what I, you or someone else here personally pursue, I care what the people do. That means 80% of the people who want to take photographs. That is my baseline. There will always be those pixel peepers, gearheads, sensor advocates etc who can't accept photograph unless it is captured with gear that is "proven" to be better than some other gear that some graphs and specs states should be better.

What matters is only the final image, not the raw, not the gear etc, only the final image. And that final image requires a context.

If to this forum comes a new member who has no idea about m4/3 system, they have questions that does it fit to their purposes. Quickly the threads evolve to urinate competition that who has the better skill reading MTF charts or how does a raw file look in ridiculous ISO values when looking a 5% area etc etc.

None of that matters. Not at all. No one else than me seems to here ask the context, that for what purpose does the photographs need to be taken and used. Are they going to print and if yes, then on what kind material, in what size and where it is set to be viewed. If only digitally, then how it is going to be viewed, is it a smartphone, television etc, are the screens calibrated for the space etc. And then how much effort are put to the files, are they straight out of the camera JPEG's or are they going to be edited, manipulated or used as part of the other art.

The camera is not for most people at all a way to brag to others or argue with others that how much they know about the specs of it and others and how to compare them. The camera is for taking photographs and as long the final image output requirements match the camera capabilities, all is good.

The world went from 10x15 prints to smartphone screen, the majority of the images that today are viewed are from small tiny smartphone screen that no one is pixel peeping at 100% unless there is such tiny detail that couldn't be captured because wrong focal length. And then it matters far more that tiny small detail than the image quality what so ever.

And there is this illusion among some people that everyone needs that 35mm sensor because "its smooth transitions" or what ever, but no, only very tiny percentage of all people taking photographs will need such. What most people would benefit far more is a zoom lens instead a fixed focal length. One of those things that so many phone manufacturers are hunting for to get a change to offer that variable focal length for the user. A control of the time and exposure with shutter speed and F-stop so people can get creative. Something again that phone manufacturers are offering now.

And mostly important is the image editing phase, where before it was darkrooms, before it was the glass plates, it has all turned to digital. Not long time ago it was a adobe photoshop and now it is just the smartphone or tablet, and now we are moving even further to the pre-editing phase where the edits are put on the image on the moment it is captured, effects like darkening the background, smoothing the skin, lighting the eyes and teeths etc etc.

Reason why photography became so huge thing, and why 135 film became so popular was never about SLR cameras and darkroom workflow etc. It was always the pocket cameras, a fixed 28/35mm lens, maybe f/2.8 if not f/3.5 and integrated flash. Point'n'shoot. Fathers, mothers, sisters, friends etc all using pocket cameras. Almost 95% of the all cameras sold ever at the peak moment of film were pocket cameras, and KODAK owned camera market, even the early digital camera era market. The standard quality of the photography for film was ASA 100 and ASA 200 and 10x15 and A4. All pre-processed by the photo lab technician with a few button presses to increase contrast, adjust brightness, balance colors.

And today that exact same thing is going on via smartphones. Quality requirements and needs has not changed. People still do A3 size prints but they mainly use smartphone screens to look at the images.

That is the mainstream demand and requirements. Not pixel peeping, not dynamic range, not anything else than get the memory captured and use it in later to relive the moment.

No one cares if there is someone who puts hours for one image editing, spend days or weeks to get that photo captured in the first place, spend thousands to the gear and traveling etc. If the photo looks nice, someone buys it. But no one really cares about all the effort put to that photo, that is photographer own thing to live and memorize those experiences and feelings.

Because one camera gets 0.3 EV better SNR in one lab test, doesn't make it better camera. Not even 2 EV these days. All that is just waste of arguments.

 

[Tommi K1]

you don't know you? Hilarious thing is in those examples m4/3rds is the bigger sensor

You did know? Hilarious thing is that I don't care about your out of context pixel peeping.

 

[Wu Jiaqiu]

you don't know you? Hilarious thing is in those examples m4/3rds is the bigger sensor

You did know? Hilarious thing is that I don't care about your out of context pixel peeping.

well it shows how fallible blind tests are when sensors these days are all actually very good, especially in a controlled environment, have a good day now chap

 

[Donald B]

in carefully controlled conditions then most cameras will look alike, even ones from several years ago, when you start pushing the raw files or shoot under less than ideal conditions the cameras with the better sensors will usually fare much better

Exactly this.

Despite the never ending threads in this forum that go against that belief.

At the end of the day in great light my em10ii and 6dMkii produce very similar results. Both good enough for my use.

With an unstabilised prime for any static object m43 shoots way ahead of aps-c with its up to 5 extra stops.

The Achilles heel of aps-c is the complete inability of the manufacturers to stabilise the sensor in the standard models.

Full frame does it but that is an area where cost and weight are not factors for the small user base.

But when light fails or its time for astro or its time to really push files the 6D pulls ahead. By a long way.

surely this all depends on the context of the shot, the light levels and shutter speed needed, lenses with stabilisation doe exist and of course you can use a tripod, horses for courses

Well yes, with a lot of messing about and props you can match results.

I am not sure what your point is in relation to comparing the large sensor to the small sensor in the camera when the small sensor can be stabilised easily giving instant extra stops more than the large sensor gains in mere size which is further decreased by an offset in portability. Throw in a tripod and convenience goes completely out of the window.

Not many primes with stabilisation.

Switching myself from Fuji as IBIS is not coming and the 45mm on an E-PL9 saves all that double the focal length shutter speed for my primes and when it hits my 6400 ISO limit the shutter speeds drops back below the selected minimum and you just get a blur.

like i said it's all horses for courses, i've actually made no comparisons between sensor sizes at all just about the quality of the sensors involved and whether one needs some sort of tripod or stabilisation to actually get a shot

I was responding to the comment of the better sensor pulling ahead in low light which is not my experience with aps-c.

this for example is what i was talking about originally, 2 different sensors sizes, same MP similar ISO, one is a m4/3rds camera, can you tell which is which?

If the pictures were taken at 1/10 sec with my 45mm f1.8 and my 35mm f2 aps-c lens handheld or the ISO had to be pushed to get the image steady you would certainly would be able to tell the difference. That is the point I am making.

that's quite specific, if you don't need to do that and shoot in decent light and don't push the processing hard then the differences for the most part are minimal, like i said it's horses for courses...basically shoot the system that allows you to get the results you want

Getting back to the start of the sub thread.

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

in carefully controlled conditions then most cameras will look alike, even ones from several years ago, when you start pushing the raw files or shoot under less than ideal conditions the cameras with the better sensors will usually fare much better

I am just saying not so from my experience when you factor in IBIS where m43 can shoot well ahead of the relative quality of the sensor for primes and even zooms with the extra stabilisation stops.

depends on what you're shooting and whether ibis can make a difference, so that is why i used the word usually rather than absolutely

There's the difference. I find in poor light which is usually indoors where I would prefer a fast prime IBIS usually improves things and makes the lens a great deal faster.

Yeah it really depends. I'm a big proponent of IBIS, and don't see myself ever buying another camera without it, but it is not a silver bullet. There are many situations where it is of little to no help. Basically IBIS is great IF IF IF and IF.

If you're shooting in low light, if your subject is static, if you're not using a tripod, and if the camera/system you're comparing to doesn't have any sort of stabilization. Then IBIS is totally awesome and smaller sensor cameras can shoot above their class. But this is rare, probably less than 1% for most people.

I've been shooting with the original EM1 since it came out. When I want to really drag the shutter speed, and don't have a tripod, IBIS really comes in handy.

But I've been shooting with an A7 II too, and just got an A7 III, and while the IBIS probably isn't quite as effective (I haven't tested it much yet), the low light/noise performance is out of this world. I was taking photos of a friend's 2 year old the other night. Low light, indoors, shutter speed around 1/125 because little kids don't sit still. At 1/125 or faster shutter speeds, unless you're shooting with a tele lens, IBIS is not terribly helpful.

I was shooting with a couple 2.8 primes (24/2.8, 35/2.8) and the 85/1.8. With the 2.8 lenses and the awesome high ISO performance I was able to get such clean files, about what I would expect from my EM1 if I had an F1.2 lens on and could use 2 1/2 stop lower ISO.

thats why i picked up the 25mm 0.95 . the oly 1.2 lens are really no better than any 1.8 as far as letting in light. the 1.2 are 1.7 and the 1.8 are 2.0.

Additionally, IBIS doesn't help with low ISO dynamic range. The dynamic range on this A7 III is simply phenomenal. I can boost up the exposure about 5 stops and still have meaningful information at ISO 100. On my EM1 I generally don't like to boost more than 2 stops. With dynamic range this good you can get pseudo HDR type effects with a single exposure. It's really impressive. I don't need to do +5 EV boosts very often, but for every day photography the files are much more malleable in post.

--
Olympus EM5mk2 ,EM1mk2

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9412035244

past toys. k100d, k10d,k7,fz5,fz150,500uz,canon G9, Olympus xz1 em5mk1

 

[Donald B]

Because, it is not until you get out there in the real world and shoot real pictures of actual subjects, that you notice the differences.

Just like the studio lens tests have limits and do not always tell the story about how good a lens is in real life use, those silly test shots actually tell you very little.

Nobody ever talks about the smoother creamy tone and colour transitions of larger sensors or the more "gritty" appearance of a smaller sensor, because you cannot measure this with a test chart.

what you really mean is FF lens is like shooting through a swimming pool

Don

The only way to decide what is for you, is to do your own field tests.

 

[NextShowForSure]

in carefully controlled conditions then most cameras will look alike, even ones from several years ago, when you start pushing the raw files or shoot under less than ideal conditions the cameras with the better sensors will usually fare much better

Exactly this.

Despite the never ending threads in this forum that go against that belief.

At the end of the day in great light my em10ii and 6dMkii produce very similar results. Both good enough for my use.

With an unstabilised prime for any static object m43 shoots way ahead of aps-c with its up to 5 extra stops.

The Achilles heel of aps-c is the complete inability of the manufacturers to stabilise the sensor in the standard models.

Full frame does it but that is an area where cost and weight are not factors for the small user base.

But when light fails or its time for astro or its time to really push files the 6D pulls ahead. By a long way.

surely this all depends on the context of the shot, the light levels and shutter speed needed, lenses with stabilisation doe exist and of course you can use a tripod, horses for courses

Well yes, with a lot of messing about and props you can match results.

I am not sure what your point is in relation to comparing the large sensor to the small sensor in the camera when the small sensor can be stabilised easily giving instant extra stops more than the large sensor gains in mere size which is further decreased by an offset in portability. Throw in a tripod and convenience goes completely out of the window.

Not many primes with stabilisation.

Switching myself from Fuji as IBIS is not coming and the 45mm on an E-PL9 saves all that double the focal length shutter speed for my primes and when it hits my 6400 ISO limit the shutter speeds drops back below the selected minimum and you just get a blur.

like i said it's all horses for courses, i've actually made no comparisons between sensor sizes at all just about the quality of the sensors involved and whether one needs some sort of tripod or stabilisation to actually get a shot

I was responding to the comment of the better sensor pulling ahead in low light which is not my experience with aps-c.

this for example is what i was talking about originally, 2 different sensors sizes, same MP similar ISO, one is a m4/3rds camera, can you tell which is which?

If the pictures were taken at 1/10 sec with my 45mm f1.8 and my 35mm f2 aps-c lens handheld or the ISO had to be pushed to get the image steady you would certainly would be able to tell the difference. That is the point I am making.

that's quite specific, if you don't need to do that and shoot in decent light and don't push the processing hard then the differences for the most part are minimal, like i said it's horses for courses...basically shoot the system that allows you to get the results you want

Getting back to the start of the sub thread.

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

in carefully controlled conditions then most cameras will look alike, even ones from several years ago, when you start pushing the raw files or shoot under less than ideal conditions the cameras with the better sensors will usually fare much better

I am just saying not so from my experience when you factor in IBIS where m43 can shoot well ahead of the relative quality of the sensor for primes and even zooms with the extra stabilisation stops.

depends on what you're shooting and whether ibis can make a difference, so that is why i used the word usually rather than absolutely

There's the difference. I find in poor light which is usually indoors where I would prefer a fast prime IBIS usually improves things and makes the lens a great deal faster.

Yeah it really depends. I'm a big proponent of IBIS, and don't see myself ever buying another camera without it, but it is not a silver bullet. There are many situations where it is of little to no help. Basically IBIS is great IF IF IF and IF.

If you're shooting in low light, if your subject is static, if you're not using a tripod, and if the camera/system you're comparing to doesn't have any sort of stabilization. Then IBIS is totally awesome and smaller sensor cameras can shoot above their class. But this is rare, probably less than 1% for most people.

I've been shooting with the original EM1 since it came out. When I want to really drag the shutter speed, and don't have a tripod, IBIS really comes in handy.

But I've been shooting with an A7 II too, and just got an A7 III, and while the IBIS probably isn't quite as effective (I haven't tested it much yet), the low light/noise performance is out of this world. I was taking photos of a friend's 2 year old the other night. Low light, indoors, shutter speed around 1/125 because little kids don't sit still. At 1/125 or faster shutter speeds, unless you're shooting with a tele lens, IBIS is not terribly helpful.

I was shooting with a couple 2.8 primes (24/2.8, 35/2.8) and the 85/1.8. With the 2.8 lenses and the awesome high ISO performance I was able to get such clean files, about what I would expect from my EM1 if I had an F1.2 lens on and could use 2 1/2 stop lower ISO.

Additionally, IBIS doesn't help with low ISO dynamic range. The dynamic range on this A7 III is simply phenomenal. I can boost up the exposure about 5 stops and still have meaningful information at ISO 100. On my EM1 I generally don't like to boost more than 2 stops. With dynamic range this good you can get pseudo HDR type effects with a single exposure. It's really impressive. I don't need to do +5 EV boosts very often, but for every day photography the files are much more malleable in post.

I am talking from the standpoint of someone who can only afford one system and managing to move out of aps-c at minimum cost with a free 45mm f1.8 and a cheap E-Pl9 which works very well.

Of course if you have a full frame great but I think as a single system user on a budget m43 is difficult to beat and aps-c is just not for anyone using IBIS or wanting to use low shutter speeds on a prime. Static objects I know. As soon as you say you like IBIS it is assumed you do not know this and you get a long lecture on fundamentals.

My original point was in the circumstances of needing slow shutter speeds on primes m43 is the place to be and I find the downside on sensor performance is far less than I thought it would be.

1% certainly is way below my use in interior shots and full frame ownership is a pretty low percentage of camera users in itself. This whole dream of mass conversion to full frame is pure fantasy though there is a disproportionate amount of noise from the small number of users and the industry confusing everything at present. There is a hint of desperation in this painful belated full frame to mirrorless switch especially with Sony making do with their aps-c mount when you cannot even see all of the sensor.