Full-Frame, what am I missing?

[ikolbyi]

As someone who is heavily invested in both MFT (OMS & Panny) and FF (Panny), I wanted to share an image of the two systems side-by-side for those who continuously discuss MFT & FF systems as if MFT is now a cancer or dead system (my interpretation on this forum commentary).

The grass is not necessarily greener on the other (FF) side, it all comes down to how you use the system and what you are trying to photograph.

The below sample is of a static image with natural lighting. Something I saw in my yard after a heavy rainstorm so I brought out both cameras for a quick and dirty comparison. I am noting now the setting are different between the cameras because the systems are different. Different focus distances, lenses, sensors, etc .... but I tried my best to make the image comparison identical. Images processed through DXO v7.

Lumix G9.2

Lumix S1R.2



Which one do you prefer?

 

[ikolbyi]

Nice Sunday article on the BBC website about an OM Systems ambassador... MFT doesn't appear to have effected his ability to create profoundly beautiful images.... mostly on an E-M1.2.
MFT!

Are you able to share a link to the story?

 

[Asherax]

Nice Sunday article on the BBC website about an OM Systems ambassador... MFT doesn't appear to have effected his ability to create profoundly beautiful images.... mostly on an E-M1.2.
MFT!

Are you able to share a link to the story?

click the link! MFT!

Alternatively if your browser has blocks, as mine does... here's the link: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c80kve8kr4no

--
Photography is poetry made visible; it is the art of painting with light!

 

[Cafe Racer]

Those non-camera individuals would probably choose a vibrant smartphone photo over both camera images.

These are the same audience who fund professional photographers to capture special moments.

And that's the audience that do not have the requisite knowledge to understand or to critically analyse the image quality capabilities of camera systems.

Without that audience, there wouldn't be a market for photography services.

 

[ikolbyi]

Those non-camera individuals would probably choose a vibrant smartphone photo over both camera images.

These are the same audience who fund professional photographers to capture special moments.

And that's the audience that do not have the requisite knowledge to understand or to critically analyse the image quality capabilities of camera systems.

Without that audience, there wouldn't be a market for photography services.

criticize individuals all you want, you are criticizing the hand that feeds the industry.

 

[ikolbyi]

Nice Sunday article on the BBC website about an OM Systems ambassador... MFT doesn't appear to have effected his ability to create profoundly beautiful images.... mostly on an E-M1.2.
MFT!

Are you able to share a link to the story?

click the link! MFT!

Alternatively if your browser has blocks, as mine does... here's the link: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c80kve8kr4no

Thank you for sharing. I agree with the author of the article, your own backyard can be a photographer sanctuary.

 

[Jorginho]

The FF shot looks better as the background is more blurred to make the mushroom stand out. Stem detail is also better.

It is strange to compare these two formats as FF sensor area is 4x the size and no one suggests M43 offers better IQ.

However, such static subjects could easily be shot with the handheld Panasonic Hires shot in which case it would get better detail. Or with a tripod in which case everything gets a lot better. I think you are getting close to Medium Format with that kind of shot.

A 'stitched' M43 shot will not be the same IQ as MF

If this was the case, no one would use MF or FF cameras.

Carrying around a tripod negates any perceived benefit with an M43 camera.

The biggest problem with M43 is sensor size and native (real) resolution.

The other is the difficulty in subject isolation by restrictions on DOF with M43.

I never said it would be the same. I said it would be close. SInce my EM1.2 shooting noctilucent clouds in hires mode did better than the D800E NIkon 36 Mp which I shot alongside it, I am pretty sure it is somewhere between FF and MF.
Tripods do no defeat mFT at all, that is nonsense. Doing it ALL THE time surely is. But how am I supposed to shoot aurorae or noctilucent clouds without one? Right. Regardless of your camera, you need one. Besides using a tripod for landscapes can be helpfull for most since it tends to make a lot of use calm down and focus on the shot. So you are more precise exacting which location you want to shoot etcetc.
Also: you do not always need a tripod. For this mushroom it seems if you could find a flat stone or just rest it on the forestfloor would be fine.

Everyone by now knows the restrictions of this feature, sure, that is not my point. My point is that in this case it seems pixelshift hires mode could be used and would get you better results, bar the DOF. I guess a 100 MP Pixelshift shot from a G92 is still better than a single shot coming from a S1(II). But unsure. It would be close.

 

[Jorginho]

The FF shot looks better as the background is more blurred to make the mushroom stand out. Stem detail is also better.

It is strange to compare these two formats as FF sensor area is 4x the size and no one suggests M43 offers better IQ.

However, such static subjects could easily be shot with the handheld Panasonic Hires shot in which case it would get better detail. Or with a tripod in which case everything gets a lot better. I think you are getting close to Medium Format with that kind of shot.

A 'stitched' M43 shot will not be the same IQ as MF

If this was the case, no one would use MF or FF cameras.

It will actually be closer than you may imagine. But as with all pixel shift features movement is its weak spot. So it's utility is not the same as a dedicated high MP camera

Sure but that was not the argument. No unless I am mistaken mushrooms do not move a whole lot. So that was my point.

A controlled sample from DPreview

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/om-system-om-1-review#IQ

Carrying around a tripod negates any perceived benefit with an M43 camera.

Whilst that is certainly true , I feel to get the best from high MP FF or MF sensors that shooting on a tripod certainly helps

Yes and from what I have seen Olympus is not as good with pixelshifting modes as Panasonic is. May be the OM1 has changed this, but I thought I still saw that the G9-2 is better with sharper picitures and more detail than any OM1 I ever saw. Unsure but if correct the cam would do better than this comparison above (where I think GFX100 is still visibly better).

The biggest problem with M43 is sensor size and native (real) resolution.

The other is the difficulty in subject isolation by restrictions on DOF with M43.

 

[ikolbyi]

Everyone by now knows the restrictions of this feature, sure, that is not my point. My point is that in this case it seems pixelshift hires mode could be used and would get you better results, bar the DOF. I guess a 100 MP Pixelshift shot from a G92 is still better than a single shot coming from a S1(II). But unsure. It would be close.

My 20 / 25 mp MFT cameras are my primary tool due to size. I personally don’t see an advantage of a FF 25mp camera because DXO is the great equalizer. I own the S1R.2 for when I desire a larger mp size image.

 

[ikolbyi]

The FF shot looks better as the background is more blurred to make the mushroom stand out. Stem detail is also better.

It is strange to compare these two formats as FF sensor area is 4x the size and no one suggests M43 offers better IQ.

However, such static subjects could easily be shot with the handheld Panasonic Hires shot in which case it would get better detail. Or with a tripod in which case everything gets a lot better. I think you are getting close to Medium Format with that kind of shot.

A 'stitched' M43 shot will not be the same IQ as MF

If this was the case, no one would use MF or FF cameras.

It will actually be closer than you may imagine. But as with all pixel shift features movement is its weak spot. So it's utility is not the same as a dedicated high MP camera

Sure but that was not the argument. No unless I am mistaken mushrooms do not move a whole lot. So that was my point.

A controlled sample from DPreview

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/om-system-om-1-review#IQ

Carrying around a tripod negates any perceived benefit with an M43 camera.

Whilst that is certainly true , I feel to get the best from high MP FF or MF sensors that shooting on a tripod certainly helps

Yes and from what I have seen Olympus is not as good with pixelshifting modes as Panasonic is. May be the OM1 has changed this, but I thought I still saw that the G9-2 is better with sharper picitures and more detail than any OM1 I ever saw. Unsure but if correct the cam would do better than this comparison above (where I think GFX100 is still visibly better).

The biggest problem with M43 is sensor size and native (real) resolution.

The other is the difficulty in subject isolation by restrictions on DOF with M43.

I was not satisfied with my OM-1.1 or G9.2 pixel shifting which is why I purchased the S1R (and now v2) for that time I do require the higher detail.

 

[JNK 100]

Everyone by now knows the restrictions of this feature, sure, that is not my point. My point is that in this case it seems pixelshift hires mode could be used and would get you better results, bar the DOF. I guess a 100 MP Pixelshift shot from a G92 is still better than a single shot coming from a S1(II). But unsure. It would be close.

My 20 / 25 mp MFT cameras are my primary tool due to size. I personally don’t see an advantage of a FF 25mp camera because DXO is the great equalizer. I own the S1R.2 for when I desire a larger mp size image.

DXO would only be an "equaliser" if it was not used on the FF shot though wouldn't it? If DXO was used on both M43 and FF , the FF shot would be better as it has 4x the sensor area....

 

[2ndact scene1]

As someone who is heavily invested in both MFT (OMS & Panny) and FF (Panny), I wanted to share an image of the two systems side-by-side for those who continuously discuss MFT & FF systems as if MFT is now a cancer or dead system (my interpretation on this forum commentary).

The grass is not necessarily greener on the other (FF) side, it all comes down to how you use the system and what you are trying to photograph.

The below sample is of a static image with natural lighting. Something I saw in my yard after a heavy rainstorm so I brought out both cameras for a quick and dirty comparison. I am noting now the setting are different between the cameras because the systems are different. Different focus distances, lenses, sensors, etc .... but I tried my best to make the image comparison identical. Images processed through DXO v7.

Lumix G9.2

Lumix S1R.2

Which one do you prefer?

Timely discussion. There are some subjects where you can use either format and get good results. But that is not true of all situations.

I currently have LUMIX M4/3 equipment, which I use 85% -90% of the time and Canon Full Frame which I use for the rest. I do mainly event and theater photography but there other genres also. I only use the Canon FF equipment for situations I think M4/3 would not handle well. But at this very moment, almost all my Canon equipment is in 2 boxes ready to send to MPB in Brooklyn tomorrow.

Why? I have been using Canon for over 10 years and it is hard to sell it off but I have to for budget reasons (funding new equipment), lack of space in my camera cabinet and more importantly, improving my ability to produce results in certain situations.

What’s next? I really wanted to concentrate on one format and one set of lenses. I rented the OM-1, g9ii and GH6 over the last few months. They all were better than my GH5S (I have two) and G95 and the Olympus models that preceded them. But during this time two jobs came up for which I used or should have used my 6D and EF 17-40mm. One was shooting architecture, especially HDR interiors with dark rooms and windows streaming in very bright daylight. The other was taking images of a brand new trolley my city just purchased using historic mansions as background (between 10:30am and noon because that was when a driver was available). I actually did the first one with my LUMIX equipment but should have used Canon FF.

I live in the Southeastern United States and when the sun is shining full blast in the middle of the day, it is extremely bright. And I often don’t get to any choice as to what time of day I am shooting.

In my opinion, regardless of whatever settings you use or whatever lenses you use, even the newest M4/3 sensors are just not able to handle extreme dynamic range at the level I am looking for (my old 6D struggled also). They all do a great job of handling highlights but the ability to raise shadows and retain details in shadows is just not where I want it. I am no processing or sensor technology expert. So, I could be wrong; I only have my own research and experience to go on. But I think a newer FF sensor can help me.

Solution: I am selling my Canon equipment and have a LUMIX S5 and 20-60mm on order. When it gets here, one of my GH5S bodies will probably go also. Am I excited? Not really. It is a tool for specific circumstances. I don’t even know if I will buy more L format lenses because M4/3 lenses are so much smaller and much cheaper. I am actually more excited about having a 20-60mm lens because that is fantastic focal length range for what I do.

Here is one irony: the ability to shoot the GH5S at ISO 12,800 when required has made it a marvelous tool for theater and I will continue to use it. But in theater, whatever is in deep shadow should stay in deep shadow. The lighting director doesn’t want you to see it! So raising shadows is not a priority. But controlling highlights under stage lighting very much is a priority. I will use the S5 for wide angle shots because of the zoom lens. But I expect to continue using the GH5S.

 

[ikolbyi]

Everyone by now knows the restrictions of this feature, sure, that is not my point. My point is that in this case it seems pixelshift hires mode could be used and would get you better results, bar the DOF. I guess a 100 MP Pixelshift shot from a G92 is still better than a single shot coming from a S1(II). But unsure. It would be close.

My 20 / 25 mp MFT cameras are my primary tool due to size. I personally don’t see an advantage of a FF 25mp camera because DXO is the great equalizer. I own the S1R.2 for when I desire a larger mp size image.

DXO would only be an "equaliser" if it was not used on the FF shot though wouldn't it? If DXO was used on both M43 and FF , the FF shot would be better as it has 4x the sensor area....

If that statement where true than my S1R/2 photography would be showcased a lot more over my MFT, but in reality that is not the case.

it comes down the subject and story, not technical (camera) accuracy.

 

[James Stirling]

The FF shot looks better as the background is more blurred to make the mushroom stand out. Stem detail is also better.

It is strange to compare these two formats as FF sensor area is 4x the size and no one suggests M43 offers better IQ.

However, such static subjects could easily be shot with the handheld Panasonic Hires shot in which case it would get better detail. Or with a tripod in which case everything gets a lot better. I think you are getting close to Medium Format with that kind of shot.

A 'stitched' M43 shot will not be the same IQ as MF

If this was the case, no one would use MF or FF cameras.

It will actually be closer than you may imagine. But as with all pixel shift features movement is its weak spot. So it's utility is not the same as a dedicated high MP camera

Sure but that was not the argument. No unless I am mistaken mushrooms do not move a whole lot. So that was my point.

I was actually replying to JNK 100's statement

"A 'stitched' M43 shot will not be the same IQ as MF"

A controlled sample from DPreview

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/om-system-om-1-review#IQ

Carrying around a tripod negates any perceived benefit with an M43 camera.

Whilst that is certainly true , I feel to get the best from high MP FF or MF sensors that shooting on a tripod certainly helps

Yes and from what I have seen Olympus is not as good with pixelshifting modes as Panasonic is. May be the OM1 has changed this, but I thought I still saw that the G9-2 is better with sharper picitures and more detail than any OM1 I ever saw. Unsure but if correct the cam would do better than this comparison above (where I think GFX100 is still visibly better).

As well as it should be but bearing in mind these are 100% crops of massive image files I think in real life use for all but the most extreme use case . The pixel shift image from the OM-1 is very good , I only gave it default sharpening which does not get the best from it . Though I am not a fan of the software for pixel shift OM workspace is a better tool and I would use this for my own stuff if doing this



This is how much of the pixel shift image from the OM-1 fills a 32" 4K monitor . It equates to a 34.5 x 25.9" print at 300ppi

The biggest problem with M43 is sensor size and native (real) resolution.

The other is the difficulty in subject isolation by restrictions on DOF with M43.

--
Jim Stirling:
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason, is like administering medicine to the dead." - Thomas Paine
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post

 

[Carol T]

[No message]

 

[Cafe Racer]

Those non-camera individuals would probably choose a vibrant smartphone photo over both camera images.

These are the same audience who fund professional photographers to capture special moments.

And that's the audience that do not have the requisite knowledge to understand or to critically analyse the image quality capabilities of camera systems.

Without that audience, there wouldn't be a market for photography services.

criticize individuals all you want,

What makes you think I'm criticising those non-camera individuals. Asking them which image of two they prefer is just not a meaningful way to evaluate the image quality capabilities of camera systems. Anyone with the requisite knowledge should know that.

you are criticizing the hand that feeds the industry.

 

[James Stirling]

Everyone by now knows the restrictions of this feature, sure, that is not my point. My point is that in this case it seems pixelshift hires mode could be used and would get you better results, bar the DOF. I guess a 100 MP Pixelshift shot from a G92 is still better than a single shot coming from a S1(II). But unsure. It would be close.

My 20 / 25 mp MFT cameras are my primary tool due to size. I personally don’t see an advantage of a FF 25mp camera because DXO is the great equalizer. I own the S1R.2 for when I desire a larger mp size image.

DXO would only be an "equaliser" if it was not used on the FF shot though wouldn't it? If DXO was used on both M43 and FF , the FF shot would be better as it has 4x the sensor area....

If that statement where true than my S1R/2 photography

The statement is true , DXO et al can be used on any format and due to the higher MP count in a number of scenarios the extra resolution , which can be sacrificed to NR . Gives better results it is straightforward to remove noise however real detail cannot be created

The full frame image will both be cleaner and more detailed

would be showcased a lot more over my MFT, but in reality that is not the case.

it comes down the subject and story, not technical (camera) accuracy.

You posted a direct comparison between m43 and FF images which is very much a technical post , on a gear forum on a gear review site that does not seem unreasonable

--
Jim Stirling:
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason, is like administering medicine to the dead." - Thomas Paine
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post

 

[Jorginho]

To each their own. I could directly compare the D800e with the EM1.2 and the EM1.2 in situation where it could was a bit better than the D800e. Which to this day is a very solid FF sensor I think. I do expect the G9.2 to outclass my Em1.2 in pixelshift mode but may be it is not too significant.

 

[JNK 100]

To each their own. I could directly compare the D800e with the EM1.2 and the EM1.2 in situation where it could was a bit better than the D800e. Which to this day is a very solid FF sensor I think. I do expect the G9.2 to outclass my Em1.2 in pixelshift mode but may be it is not too significant.

This Nikon was launched 13 years ago. We need to compare current M43 with current FF or APS -C

There seems to be a great reluctance in this forum to accept that bigger, higher-resolution sensors offer better IQ.

This is basic physics I am afraid.

It can be argued that M43 is sufficient for a lot of uses and has the benefit of lower weight and smaller size however.

 

[ahaslett]

To each their own. I could directly compare the D800e with the EM1.2 and the EM1.2 in situation where it could was a bit better than the D800e. Which to this day is a very solid FF sensor I think. I do expect the G9.2 to outclass my Em1.2 in pixelshift mode but may be it is not too significant.

This Nikon was launched 13 years ago. We need to compare current M43 with current FF or APS -C

There seems to be a great reluctance in this forum to accept that bigger, higher-resolution sensors offer better IQ.

This is basic physics I am afraid.

It can be argued that M43 is sufficient for a lot of uses and has the benefit of lower weight and smaller size however.

I can’t be bothered, except to point to my A7CR being 515g and the G9 658g. I realise the ep7, G100D and OM5 are lighter than any FF body, although the fp l is only a few gm heavier than an OM5.

With lenses, it rather depends on angle of view and entry pupil size, so an MFT 17/1.2 is heavier and more expensive than a Sony 40/2.5 G, although the MFT lens will focus in lower light. F1.2 is harder to design for than f2.5.

Higher resolution certainly has advantages for some types of shot, although there are diminishing returns for sure. DR at base ISO is a real advantage.

I would certainly argue that my OM5 and 12-45/4 are sufficient for a lot of uses.

TLR It all depends - choice is good.

A

 

[ikolbyi]

To each their own. I could directly compare the D800e with the EM1.2 and the EM1.2 in situation where it could was a bit better than the D800e. Which to this day is a very solid FF sensor I think. I do expect the G9.2 to outclass my Em1.2 in pixelshift mode but may be it is not too significant.

This Nikon was launched 13 years ago. We need to compare current M43 with current FF or APS -C

There seems to be a great reluctance in this forum to accept that bigger, higher-resolution sensors offer better IQ.

This is basic physics I am afraid.

It can be argued that M43 is sufficient for a lot of uses and has the benefit of lower weight and smaller size however.

This is more correct: most people don’t need the benefits of a modern FF sensor and MFT is more than capable for 90% of their needs.



It appears that 10% who do require a FF are the loudest vocal.