The 20mp sensor is perfectly fine.

[Messier Object]

I think you are confusing marketing with practical benefits. A 24mp sensor has existed in FF lands since the d3x and Sony a900. Yet we are still seeing brand new bodies with 24mp today.

Buyers can walk and chew gum, they make sensible decisions on the whole. Like others here I am not sure I would mind very much if the next body is still 20mp if we continue to see strides in video, HR modes, blending modes etc. Alongside some other improvements in IBIS etc.

Would it be nice to have a native 36mp body? Sure. I am not convinced I would buy one though, s as I am also not sure the lack of 36mp will move me on. If my business consistently demands high MP I might complement the system with a Fuji MF GFX... and really only for fun as I understand the FF bodies are within spitting distance IQ wise.

But to bring it back, marketing is difficult now. With COVID and social distancing, the push to quality online content is accelerating, where high MP is wasted and high iSO is a minor thing.

I recall that you have an E-M1 II, correct ? And before that was it an E-M5 or E-M5 II ?

So you upgraded to the E-M1 II, but why didn’t you buy the E-M1 Mark III ?

Surely after 4 years the new model would be improved enough for you to benefit from it

Peter

 

[SrMi]

Who is arguing that base and low ISO on M4/3 is bad?

I just want better high ISO performance. :-(

Nikon Z 7 vs Olympus E-M1 Mark III

PDR @ ISO 3200: Olympus: 6.16, Nikon: 6.83

Max PDR: Olympus: 9.74, Nikon: 11.56

 

[Ab Latchin]

I think you are confusing marketing with practical benefits. A 24mp sensor has existed in FF lands since the d3x and Sony a900. Yet we are still seeing brand new bodies with 24mp today.

Buyers can walk and chew gum, they make sensible decisions on the whole. Like others here I am not sure I would mind very much if the next body is still 20mp if we continue to see strides in video, HR modes, blending modes etc. Alongside some other improvements in IBIS etc.

Would it be nice to have a native 36mp body? Sure. I am not convinced I would buy one though, s as I am also not sure the lack of 36mp will move me on. If my business consistently demands high MP I might complement the system with a Fuji MF GFX... and really only for fun as I understand the FF bodies are within spitting distance IQ wise.

But to bring it back, marketing is difficult now. With COVID and social distancing, the push to quality online content is accelerating, where high MP is wasted and high iSO is a minor thing.

I recall that you have an E-M1 II, correct ? And before that was it an E-M5 or E-M5 II ?

So you upgraded to the E-M1 II, but why didn’t you buy the E-M1 Mark III ?

Surely after 4 years the new model would be improved enough for you to benefit from it
Peter

I do have an EM1.3. I bought it predominantly for the HHHR and ProRes RAW. However it had some surprising features, HR mode is no longer restricted in Aperture, and there are a few other improvements in use-ability fro work. But the HHHR has been very useful in the studio.

As it stands I now have 2 em1.2 bodies and 1 em1.3 plus 1 Zcam e2m4. My DoP has 2 GH5 bodies.

 

[Raist3d]

I don't know why you "cringed" at the title? Pretty self explanatory. His argument, as has been made many times, is that the 20mp MFT sensor is good sensor that can be used professionally within certain limits.

I think his argument is going beyond that. It's pretty much "we don't need more because there's no difference/ negligible difference." At that point those are different things.

Whether those differences matter depends on who's needs and wants are involved.

I have to go back and check, but I do not think they said that. I believe Ab said there is no appreacable difference between the 20/24/26 mp cameras.

He also made the argument that for a lot of his digital work the high res cameras do not give him a significant benefit.

That is pretty much it. I think it is clearly demonstrated above, outside of moderate to extreme shadow lifting, the differences are marginal. For the shadow lifting we basically have to jump to the Nikon Z62, as the Fuji doesn't show any advantage like the nikon does.

I think using suboptimal do review scenes to make that statement can sure lead to wrong conclusions also hardly exactly some real world situations regarding shadows highlight and tone and what about color moire?

Looking at the samples, the best IQ is definately coming from the Nikon, as it the most Moire. In these samples the one with the lease Moire is the Fuji, but it is also the softest, despite having the highest MP (I understand ACR is playing its part here).

You def. get less color moire with other better raw converters for the Fuji.

Simply put, it is complicated, but all these advantages as not as clear as the continual statements of an "outdated sensor", which was the entire premise of the post.

I think the sensor is outdated for the age and when comparing- the APSC Fuji is using ir more modern. And more details. But I wouldn't call the 20 MP useless at all -It's pretty good. I simply see advantages to the Fuji that are not simply "virtually negligible." But that's me obviously- but it sure follows the Physics. And 14-bit raw.

I accept the limitations and still I am using the 20 MP sensor. All these have pros and cons. I understand your point on the "outdated sensor." Likewise, I think there's something to the Fuji sensor that simply has better image quality- if you are ok with the tradeoffs.

As for The is "not outdated" comment, sure in comparison to 'newer' high res sensors (for other formats) it leaves something to be desired for some. However it is currently the lastest sensor used by MFT cameras, with seemingly no good replacement available.

It pops up every now and then that MFT needs a new sensor. AB is simply sharing his opinion as to why he doesn't believe so.

Personally I would like to see a new sensor (maybe a 30 mp one) but Ab's may help someone understand they do not need to wait for such a sensor or switch formats.

to me the main issue is why would someone buy at similar price and size (depending on focal length) a body that has a less competitive sensor at that level. A key differentiator must still exist. To me you well know by now is size/weight, which is why I Think m43rds needs to protect that at all costs.

This was the point ab was trying to make, the sensor is still competitive, you may disagree which can certainly be argued.

The benefit for purchase doesn't have to be in pure IQ, it can be in handling, IBIS, video specifications or features, mount variety and lens support etc.

Certainly - and that’s why each system has pros and cons. But saying that the difference is negligible or can’t be seen is a bit much of speaking for others.

I am not saying it, I am showing it. Many can argue all they like, and here on DPR often do. But as the saying goes, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

You are saying it. You are not taking pictures on more extreme conditions. The other time you did this, was in a nice studio light setup where all the DR and tone and ISO falls in m43rds sensor. No wonder "you can't see a difference."

Now, why don't you borrow an X100V and shoot it in high contrast situation- both cameras, see how much highlight and tone and detail you can capture. It's not a massive difference but it's there. And whether that matters to you or not or someone else, depends on each individual.

So basically I agree with you the 20 MP sensor is quite capable. I disagree with you in pretending the Fuji APSC (ditto for the FF) "I just the same/we don't need more etc." argument. I am sure if a 24 MP m43rds sensor with 14-bit raw came out today with one more stop DR you wouldn't be complaining about it.

Do this, see it for yourself. No nice studio lit just situations. Shoot a high contrast landscape. Play with Fuji's 400% DR capture and see how easy it's to recover highlights. Etc.

The issue I have is the contrive selective evidence to prove there's no difference or "virtually negligible." That's not the case depending what you are doing- and what you want to do- and what trade offs you want to accept.

Every format has its tradeoffs, pros and cons.. Eliminate size and weight from m43rds and all of a sudden you start handling more of the cons without more pros.

Disclosure: I shoot m43rds.

--
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]

Raist3dwrote :

There's a bit of everything. For example. APSC and FF are capturing today 14-bit raw, while m43rds other than the GH5s 10 megapixel camera, are still capturing 12-bit raw. That makes a difference.

Yes. An imperceptible difference that 99.999% of people don't care about.

Who are you to say? That's up to each individual needs and wants. Post processing definitively has more leeway, and so does color tone. Not to you apparently.

Not to me as a deal breaker either. But neither you nor me are the market. Please speak for yourself.

The market has already spoken. Loud and clear.

That sure seems to be the case, isn't it?

 

[Raist3d]

Looking at the output, without looking at the camera source, I picked one image in each of the photos that really stood out to me, in a good way. Surprisingly enough, it was the Nikon, in every one.

I am just as much a fan of M43, for a lot of reasons, as any die-hard user of the format. And, for my purposes (macro and long tele), M43 fits my needs better than any FF, simply because the 20MP sensor is good enough, and there is no other format that has excellent very long lenses that are small.

However, where M43 does fall down is in tonal and color gradation, compared to FF sensors, and that's what jumped out at me in these images. Of course, I shoot things with lots of subtle tone and color shading, so I that is what I look for most in evaluating images on their technical qualities. But, system size trumps ultimate IQ for me, so I M43 it is. If I shot wide to normal, and I didn't mind larger grips and somewhat heavier gear, I'd be looking at the Nikon right now after seeing this comparison....

Your tonality and colour comment is an interesting point.

I was also intrigued by this issue 2 years ago and after some fiddling about found that I could get equally good results by adjusting processing curves, etc when editing. So I don't think the issue is intrinsic due to sensor size, but believe it must be a software/firmware choice on the part of the programmers.

There's a bit of everything. For example. APSC and FF are capturing today 14-bit raw, while m43rds other than the GH5s 10 megapixel camera, are still capturing 12-bit raw. That makes a difference.

Yet for critical display we use only 8bit.

Who is "we?" That's a lot of people. I heard some people still print and exhibit or sell in galleries? Also you miss one important point: Going from higher bit count to the 8 bits doesn't take away advantages from the higher bit count- you get to preserve more DR/tones values to begin with and from there downsample to the lower bits. This has benefits in post processing to get to those 8 bits.

Basically you can't convert to 8bits information you didn't have to begin with.

But if that seems a bit too theoretical- why on Earth is Olympus using 12 bits RAW and not 8-bit? Or Hasselblad/FUji bothering with 16 bit RAW? And why my Epson Photo R2280 driver has an option for 16-bit color?

It probably has more to do with marketing it to people. I know 8 bit only has 256 'grey' levels and that limitation certainly shows up quickly and clearly when harshly processing smooth gradation. But 12 bit is a massive leap. I expect my original G1 possibly had 10bit or less, but as long as I am careful with exposure, the images are fantastic.

14bits v 12bits will certainly slow down a camera and fill up a card quicker. But if marketing department says we need that selling point over practicality, they will win.

that’s assuming such cameras have no speed up circuitry the Fuji saves 14 but raws (as seen on x100v) really fast lossless compressed or not

I just looked up 12 bit, = over 4,000 shades of 'grey'. And a total of 68 billion shades of colour. Probably enough for most?

once again- sure depends on what you do smith 14bit you will have more leeway in post and keep more DR

a lot of people will be fine with 12 bits that’s fine all I am saying is there is a difference with higher nit count whether that makes a difference to you or me specifically is a different story

keep in mind you brought up the 8 it display thing- I was merely quickly lol ting out the fallacy in that logic

Fair enough..

But now you have piqued my interest in 12 v 24 bit, and during research found this very informative test report - field work not lab testing and for me it confirms why more than 12bit is overkill unless you accidentally underexpose by 4 stops or more and then it was virtually impossible to see a difference. In fact his conclusion was very interesting.

https://photographylife.com/14-bit-vs-12-bit-raw

That just one website. Ask yourself why MF Cameras are using now 16-bit color and why FF and APSC started to use 14-bit RAWs a while back. There's reasons from more leeway in processing, workflows and color.

You honestly think they are just doing this for the marketing of the bits? .

It never fails in this forum. "Good enough" seems to always stop at m43rds. Why does the GH5s has 14-bit? Someone started a thread with great color on that. Why would that be? Why have the 14-bits?

On exposure- remember when dealing with some landscapes shots, having the leeway in post can be important- for some. For some others not. It all depends on the individuals.

Finally that article is from 2015- it would be interesting to see how RAW converts and image editors have advanced in 6 years... and how they stress the flexibility of a richer information data file.

Good to have more info for a fuller picture here

8, 12, 14 vs 16-Bit Depth: What Do You Really Need?!

“Bit depth” is one of those terms we’ve all run into, but very few photographers truly understand. Photoshop offers 8, 16, and 32-bit file formats.

petapixel.com

You simply can't represent a wider range of DR with intermediate tones as well with less bits. It's that simple.

Of course, once again, that difference may not matter to you or someone else. Hey, I use m43rds 20 MP sensors as much as I can.

Software also plays a part, but that part is independent of the sensor size.

 

[19andrew47]

Very sensible Ab and a great family image as well.

Andrew

 

[Raist3d]

Thing is: state of the art 1" sensors are equal or better. Could be a lighter, more compact system line.

Putting Pana G9 and Sony RX100VII side by side on dpreview studio scene comparison at least to my eyes shows a 1-1.5 stop advantage for G9 on noise performance. Might not of course be a critical difference for many.

Its the same argument with m43 and APSC . But for some reason some people draw “good enough for everyone” as a line for m43 only and never consider the 1”

Maybe that's because there is no living 1" ILC system?

Oh, I assure you, that's not the case. Because when the 1'' ILC was pretty alive, the arguments were all the same.

Personally I have this thing that if my camera breaks, or I want an upgrade, I don't want to lose my lenses too. Similar as with phone cameras.

Again, irrelevant to the point I brought up.

 

[Messier Object]

I think you are confusing marketing with practical benefits. A 24mp sensor has existed in FF lands since the d3x and Sony a900. Yet we are still seeing brand new bodies with 24mp today.

Buyers can walk and chew gum, they make sensible decisions on the whole. Like others here I am not sure I would mind very much if the next body is still 20mp if we continue to see strides in video, HR modes, blending modes etc. Alongside some other improvements in IBIS etc.

Would it be nice to have a native 36mp body? Sure. I am not convinced I would buy one though, s as I am also not sure the lack of 36mp will move me on. If my business consistently demands high MP I might complement the system with a Fuji MF GFX... and really only for fun as I understand the FF bodies are within spitting distance IQ wise.

But to bring it back, marketing is difficult now. With COVID and social distancing, the push to quality online content is accelerating, where high MP is wasted and high iSO is a minor thing.

I recall that you have an E-M1 II, correct ? And before that was it an E-M5 or E-M5 II ?

So you upgraded to the E-M1 II, but why didn’t you buy the E-M1 Mark III ?

Surely after 4 years the new model would be improved enough for you to benefit from it
Peter

I do have an EM1.3. I bought it predominantly for the HHHR and ProRes RAW. However it had some surprising features, HR mode is no longer restricted in Aperture, and there are a few other improvements in use-ability fro work. But the HHHR has been very useful in the studio.

As it stands I now have 2 em1.2 bodies and 1 em1.3 plus 1 Zcam e2m4. My DoP has 2 GH5 bodies.

my disappointment isn’t the 20Megapixels it’s that there’s been no improvement in shadow noise at base ISO. The new features of the Mark III are mostly irrelevant to my photography. I’ll choose the Mark II or Mark III based on which is at hand or which has charged batteries in it because the images I come home with will be exactly the same with either camera. Out in the field the Mark III doesn’t feel like a new camera except for the different button placements and the C-mode’s new Hold feature. It still has the same ISO limitations.

And BTW, comparing the 20M sensor used by Olympus to other brands is meaningless for me as I have already chosen m,43. Comparing sensors within the m.43 format is what’s important, and that’s where we see zero improvements from Olympus since 2016.

With my other camera system I know that the Mk IV will get me much better images than the Mk III. And out in the field I know that I have the better camera in my hands with the IV and can push the ISO a little more and later when I’m processing the raws I’ll have more latitude.

Peter

 

[Henry Richardson]

The problem is, that there has not been a new sensor for m43 since January 2016, when the Pen-F was released. That is now more than 5 years ago. That is a very long time. Imagine phones were still same as 5 years ago, unthinkable.

The Sony 24mp FF sensor came out in 2008 -- 13 years ago!

The Sony 24mp APS-C sensor came out in 2011 -- 10 years ago!

Unthinkable!

--
Henry Richardson
http://www.bakubo.com

 

[Jonas Palm]

I think you are confusing marketing with practical benefits. A 24mp sensor has existed in FF lands since the d3x and Sony a900. Yet we are still seeing brand new bodies with 24mp today.

Buyers can walk and chew gum, they make sensible decisions on the whole. Like others here I am not sure I would mind very much if the next body is still 20mp if we continue to see strides in video, HR modes, blending modes etc. Alongside some other improvements in IBIS etc.

Would it be nice to have a native 36mp body? Sure. I am not convinced I would buy one though, s as I am also not sure the lack of 36mp will move me on. If my business consistently demands high MP I might complement the system with a Fuji MF GFX... and really only for fun as I understand the FF bodies are within spitting distance IQ wise.

But to bring it back, marketing is difficult now. With COVID and social distancing, the push to quality online content is accelerating, where high MP is wasted and high iSO is a minor thing.

I recall that you have an E-M1 II, correct ? And before that was it an E-M5 or E-M5 II ?

So you upgraded to the E-M1 II, but why didn’t you buy the E-M1 Mark III ?

Surely after 4 years the new model would be improved enough for you to benefit from it
Peter

I do have an EM1.3. I bought it predominantly for the HHHR and ProRes RAW. However it had some surprising features, HR mode is no longer restricted in Aperture, and there are a few other improvements in use-ability fro work. But the HHHR has been very useful in the studio.

As it stands I now have 2 em1.2 bodies and 1 em1.3 plus 1 Zcam e2m4. My DoP has 2 GH5 bodies.

my disappointment isn’t the 20Megapixels it’s that there’s been no improvement in shadow noise at base ISO. The new features of the Mark III are mostly irrelevant to my photography. I’ll choose the Mark II or Mark III based on which is at hand or which has charged batteries in it because the images I come home with will be exactly the same with either camera. Out in the field the Mark III doesn’t feel like a new camera except for the different button placements and the C-mode’s new Hold feature. It still has the same ISO limitations.

And BTW, comparing the 20M sensor used by Olympus to other brands is meaningless for me as I have already chosen m,43. Comparing sensors within the m.43 format is what’s important, and that’s where we see zero improvements from Olympus since 2016.

With my other camera system I know that the Mk IV will get me much better images than the Mk III. And out in the field I know that I have the better camera in my hands with the IV and can push the ISO a little more and later when I’m processing the raws I’ll have more latitude.

Peter

You won’t see significant improvements in base ISO shadow noise, ever, as it is dominated by shot noise. (Of course, you can just increase the amount of light captured by increasing exposure though you might risk clipping your highlights.) Digital noise reduction is the way to go if you find it distracting.

Me, I want a higher resolution sensor. The 47MP Sony (43MP in 4/3) seems like a nice starting point.

 

[Ab Latchin]

Very sensible Ab and a great family image as well.

Andrew

thanks Andrew, it’s fun being a new dad again!

 

[SrMi]

Looking at the output, without looking at the camera source, I picked one image in each of the photos that really stood out to me, in a good way. Surprisingly enough, it was the Nikon, in every one.

I am just as much a fan of M43, for a lot of reasons, as any die-hard user of the format. And, for my purposes (macro and long tele), M43 fits my needs better than any FF, simply because the 20MP sensor is good enough, and there is no other format that has excellent very long lenses that are small.

However, where M43 does fall down is in tonal and color gradation, compared to FF sensors, and that's what jumped out at me in these images. Of course, I shoot things with lots of subtle tone and color shading, so I that is what I look for most in evaluating images on their technical qualities. But, system size trumps ultimate IQ for me, so I M43 it is. If I shot wide to normal, and I didn't mind larger grips and somewhat heavier gear, I'd be looking at the Nikon right now after seeing this comparison....

Your tonality and colour comment is an interesting point.

I was also intrigued by this issue 2 years ago and after some fiddling about found that I could get equally good results by adjusting processing curves, etc when editing. So I don't think the issue is intrinsic due to sensor size, but believe it must be a software/firmware choice on the part of the programmers.

There's a bit of everything. For example. APSC and FF are capturing today 14-bit raw, while m43rds other than the GH5s 10 megapixel camera, are still capturing 12-bit raw. That makes a difference.

Yet for critical display we use only 8bit.

Who is "we?" That's a lot of people. I heard some people still print and exhibit or sell in galleries? Also you miss one important point: Going from higher bit count to the 8 bits doesn't take away advantages from the higher bit count- you get to preserve more DR/tones values to begin with and from there downsample to the lower bits. This has benefits in post processing to get to those 8 bits.

Basically you can't convert to 8bits information you didn't have to begin with.

But if that seems a bit too theoretical- why on Earth is Olympus using 12 bits RAW and not 8-bit? Or Hasselblad/FUji bothering with 16 bit RAW? And why my Epson Photo R2280 driver has an option for 16-bit color?

It probably has more to do with marketing it to people. I know 8 bit only has 256 'grey' levels and that limitation certainly shows up quickly and clearly when harshly processing smooth gradation. But 12 bit is a massive leap. I expect my original G1 possibly had 10bit or less, but as long as I am careful with exposure, the images are fantastic.

14bits v 12bits will certainly slow down a camera and fill up a card quicker. But if marketing department says we need that selling point over practicality, they will win.

that’s assuming such cameras have no speed up circuitry the Fuji saves 14 but raws (as seen on x100v) really fast lossless compressed or not

I just looked up 12 bit, = over 4,000 shades of 'grey'. And a total of 68 billion shades of colour. Probably enough for most?

once again- sure depends on what you do smith 14bit you will have more leeway in post and keep more DR

a lot of people will be fine with 12 bits that’s fine all I am saying is there is a difference with higher nit count whether that makes a difference to you or me specifically is a different story

keep in mind you brought up the 8 it display thing- I was merely quickly lol ting out the fallacy in that logic

Fair enough..

But now you have piqued my interest in 12 v 24 bit, and during research found this very informative test report - field work not lab testing and for me it confirms why more than 12bit is overkill unless you accidentally underexpose by 4 stops or more and then it was virtually impossible to see a difference. In fact his conclusion was very interesting.

https://photographylife.com/14-bit-vs-12-bit-raw

That just one website. Ask yourself why MF Cameras are using now 16-bit color and why FF and APSC started to use 14-bit RAWs a while back. There's reasons from more leeway in processing, workflows and color.

Please note that Hasselblad X1D’s sensor delivers only 14 bit data, 16 bit output data is created artificially. Fuji GFX 100 / 100s is used mostly in 14 bit mode even though the 100MP sensor is 16 bit. There is no reason to use 16 bit mode on Fuji GFX cameras (same reason why 12 bit makes sense for FF cameras at higher ISO).

You honestly think they are just doing this for the marketing of the bits? .

It never fails in this forum. "Good enough" seems to always stop at m43rds. Why does the GH5s has 14-bit? Someone started a thread with great color on that. Why would that be? Why have the 14-bits?

On exposure- remember when dealing with some landscapes shots, having the leeway in post can be important- for some. For some others not. It all depends on the individuals.

Finally that article is from 2015- it would be interesting to see how RAW converts and image editors have advanced in 6 years... and how they stress the flexibility of a richer information data file.

Good to have more info for a fuller picture here

https://petapixel.com/2018/09/19/8-12-14-vs-16-bit-depth-what-do-you-really-need/

You simply can't represent a wider range of DR with intermediate tones as well with less bits. It's that simple.

Of course, once again, that difference may not matter to you or someone else. Hey, I use m43rds 20 MP sensors as much as I can.

Software also plays a part, but that part is independent of the sensor size.

--
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]

Looking at the output, without looking at the camera source, I picked one image in each of the photos that really stood out to me, in a good way. Surprisingly enough, it was the Nikon, in every one.

I am just as much a fan of M43, for a lot of reasons, as any die-hard user of the format. And, for my purposes (macro and long tele), M43 fits my needs better than any FF, simply because the 20MP sensor is good enough, and there is no other format that has excellent very long lenses that are small.

However, where M43 does fall down is in tonal and color gradation, compared to FF sensors, and that's what jumped out at me in these images. Of course, I shoot things with lots of subtle tone and color shading, so I that is what I look for most in evaluating images on their technical qualities. But, system size trumps ultimate IQ for me, so I M43 it is. If I shot wide to normal, and I didn't mind larger grips and somewhat heavier gear, I'd be looking at the Nikon right now after seeing this comparison....

Your tonality and colour comment is an interesting point.

I was also intrigued by this issue 2 years ago and after some fiddling about found that I could get equally good results by adjusting processing curves, etc when editing. So I don't think the issue is intrinsic due to sensor size, but believe it must be a software/firmware choice on the part of the programmers.

There's a bit of everything. For example. APSC and FF are capturing today 14-bit raw, while m43rds other than the GH5s 10 megapixel camera, are still capturing 12-bit raw. That makes a difference.

Yet for critical display we use only 8bit.

Who is "we?" That's a lot of people. I heard some people still print and exhibit or sell in galleries? Also you miss one important point: Going from higher bit count to the 8 bits doesn't take away advantages from the higher bit count- you get to preserve more DR/tones values to begin with and from there downsample to the lower bits. This has benefits in post processing to get to those 8 bits.

Basically you can't convert to 8bits information you didn't have to begin with.

But if that seems a bit too theoretical- why on Earth is Olympus using 12 bits RAW and not 8-bit? Or Hasselblad/FUji bothering with 16 bit RAW? And why my Epson Photo R2280 driver has an option for 16-bit color?

It probably has more to do with marketing it to people. I know 8 bit only has 256 'grey' levels and that limitation certainly shows up quickly and clearly when harshly processing smooth gradation. But 12 bit is a massive leap. I expect my original G1 possibly had 10bit or less, but as long as I am careful with exposure, the images are fantastic.

14bits v 12bits will certainly slow down a camera and fill up a card quicker. But if marketing department says we need that selling point over practicality, they will win.

that’s assuming such cameras have no speed up circuitry the Fuji saves 14 but raws (as seen on x100v) really fast lossless compressed or not

I just looked up 12 bit, = over 4,000 shades of 'grey'. And a total of 68 billion shades of colour. Probably enough for most?

once again- sure depends on what you do smith 14bit you will have more leeway in post and keep more DR

a lot of people will be fine with 12 bits that’s fine all I am saying is there is a difference with higher nit count whether that makes a difference to you or me specifically is a different story

keep in mind you brought up the 8 it display thing- I was merely quickly lol ting out the fallacy in that logic

Fair enough..

But now you have piqued my interest in 12 v 24 bit, and during research found this very informative test report - field work not lab testing and for me it confirms why more than 12bit is overkill unless you accidentally underexpose by 4 stops or more and then it was virtually impossible to see a difference. In fact his conclusion was very interesting.

https://photographylife.com/14-bit-vs-12-bit-raw

That just one website. Ask yourself why MF Cameras are using now 16-bit color and why FF and APSC started to use 14-bit RAWs a while back. There's reasons from more leeway in processing, workflows and color.

Please note that Hasselblad X1D’s sensor delivers only 14 bit data, 16 bit output data is created artificially.

Looks like though there are some contradictions here/there, your statement seems correct. Thanks for bringing that up.

Fuji GFX 100 / 100s is used mostly in 14 bit mode even though the 100MP sensor is 16 bit. There is no reason to use 16 bit mode on Fuji GFX cameras (same reason why 12 bit makes sense for FF cameras at higher ISO).

? According to... ?

You honestly think they are just doing this for the marketing of the bits? .

It never fails in this forum. "Good enough" seems to always stop at m43rds. Why does the GH5s has 14-bit? Someone started a thread with great color on that. Why would that be? Why have the 14-bits?

On exposure- remember when dealing with some landscapes shots, having the leeway in post can be important- for some. For some others not. It all depends on the individuals.

Finally that article is from 2015- it would be interesting to see how RAW converts and image editors have advanced in 6 years... and how they stress the flexibility of a richer information data file.

Good to have more info for a fuller picture here

https://petapixel.com/2018/09/19/8-12-14-vs-16-bit-depth-what-do-you-really-need/

You simply can't represent a wider range of DR with intermediate tones as well with less bits. It's that simple.

Of course, once again, that difference may not matter to you or someone else. Hey, I use m43rds 20 MP sensors as much as I can.

Software also plays a part, but that part is independent of the sensor size.

 

[Adrian Harris]

The problem is, that there has not been a new sensor for m43 since January 2016, when the Pen-F was released. That is now more than 5 years ago. That is a very long time. Imagine phones were still same as 5 years ago, unthinkable.

The Sony 24mp FF sensor came out in 2008 -- 13 years ago!

The Sony 24mp APS-C sensor came out in 2011 -- 10 years ago!

Unthinkable!

. .

I used to have a 24mp aps-c Sony A77, and although a beautiful camera to hold and use, even at ISO 800 the sensor noise was horrific.

I was amazed at the massive improvement I gained when I moved to the m43 20mp GX8, which I bought soon after launch. ... And the lenses were so much sharper too.

Back then Sony's lenses were not the best ... And I did own a G lens!

Sony have come a long way since, but far to late and much much to heavy.

Yes I am having a love affair with m43

 

[Adrian Harris]

Looking at the output, without looking at the camera source, I picked one image in each of the photos that really stood out to me, in a good way. Surprisingly enough, it was the Nikon, in every one.

I am just as much a fan of M43, for a lot of reasons, as any die-hard user of the format. And, for my purposes (macro and long tele), M43 fits my needs better than any FF, simply because the 20MP sensor is good enough, and there is no other format that has excellent very long lenses that are small.

However, where M43 does fall down is in tonal and color gradation, compared to FF sensors, and that's what jumped out at me in these images. Of course, I shoot things with lots of subtle tone and color shading, so I that is what I look for most in evaluating images on their technical qualities. But, system size trumps ultimate IQ for me, so I M43 it is. If I shot wide to normal, and I didn't mind larger grips and somewhat heavier gear, I'd be looking at the Nikon right now after seeing this comparison....

Your tonality and colour comment is an interesting point.

I was also intrigued by this issue 2 years ago and after some fiddling about found that I could get equally good results by adjusting processing curves, etc when editing. So I don't think the issue is intrinsic due to sensor size, but believe it must be a software/firmware choice on the part of the programmers.

There's a bit of everything. For example. APSC and FF are capturing today 14-bit raw, while m43rds other than the GH5s 10 megapixel camera, are still capturing 12-bit raw. That makes a difference.

Yet for critical display we use only 8bit.

Who is "we?" That's a lot of people. I heard some people still print and exhibit or sell in galleries? Also you miss one important point: Going from higher bit count to the 8 bits doesn't take away advantages from the higher bit count- you get to preserve more DR/tones values to begin with and from there downsample to the lower bits. This has benefits in post processing to get to those 8 bits.

Basically you can't convert to 8bits information you didn't have to begin with.

But if that seems a bit too theoretical- why on Earth is Olympus using 12 bits RAW and not 8-bit? Or Hasselblad/FUji bothering with 16 bit RAW? And why my Epson Photo R2280 driver has an option for 16-bit color?

It probably has more to do with marketing it to people. I know 8 bit only has 256 'grey' levels and that limitation certainly shows up quickly and clearly when harshly processing smooth gradation. But 12 bit is a massive leap. I expect my original G1 possibly had 10bit or less, but as long as I am careful with exposure, the images are fantastic.

14bits v 12bits will certainly slow down a camera and fill up a card quicker. But if marketing department says we need that selling point over practicality, they will win.

that’s assuming such cameras have no speed up circuitry the Fuji saves 14 but raws (as seen on x100v) really fast lossless compressed or not

I just looked up 12 bit, = over 4,000 shades of 'grey'. And a total of 68 billion shades of colour. Probably enough for most?

once again- sure depends on what you do smith 14bit you will have more leeway in post and keep more DR

a lot of people will be fine with 12 bits that’s fine all I am saying is there is a difference with higher nit count whether that makes a difference to you or me specifically is a different story

keep in mind you brought up the 8 it display thing- I was merely quickly lol ting out the fallacy in that logic

Fair enough..

But now you have piqued my interest in 12 v 24 bit, and during research found this very informative test report - field work not lab testing and for me it confirms why more than 12bit is overkill unless you accidentally underexpose by 4 stops or more and then it was virtually impossible to see a difference. In fact his conclusion was very interesting.

https://photographylife.com/14-bit-vs-12-bit-raw

That just one website. Ask yourself why MF Cameras are using now 16-bit color and why FF and APSC started to use 14-bit RAWs a while back. There's reasons from more leeway in processing, workflows and color.

Please note that Hasselblad X1D’s sensor delivers only 14 bit data, 16 bit output data is created artificially.

Looks like though there are some contradictions here/there, your statement seems correct. Thanks for bringing that up.

Fuji GFX 100 / 100s is used mostly in 14 bit mode even though the 100MP sensor is 16 bit. There is no reason to use 16 bit mode on Fuji GFX cameras (same reason why 12 bit makes sense for FF cameras at higher ISO).

? According to... ?

You honestly think they are just doing this for the marketing of the bits? .

It never fails in this forum. "Good enough" seems to always stop at m43rds. Why does the GH5s has 14-bit? Someone started a thread with great color on that. Why would that be? Why have the 14-bits?

On exposure- remember when dealing with some landscapes shots, having the leeway in post can be important- for some. For some others not. It all depends on the individuals.

Finally that article is from 2015- it would be interesting to see how RAW converts and image editors have advanced in 6 years... and how they stress the flexibility of a richer information data file.

Good to have more info for a fuller picture here

https://petapixel.com/2018/09/19/8-12-14-vs-16-bit-depth-what-do-you-really-need/

You simply can't represent a wider range of DR with intermediate tones as well with less bits. It's that simple.

Of course, once again, that difference may not matter to you or someone else. Hey, I use m43rds 20 MP sensors as much as I can

I suppose what it comes down to is different needs. MF cameras are not known for their continuous high speed burst rate. Whereas for me Olympus's stellar (class leading) performance in that area has proved invaluable. Not just for sport and wildlife, but also for experimental photography (throwing water, etc).

I realise other folk will not need that feature and would prefer different performance parameters.

But I would not trade burst speed for increased bit depth. It's easier to just ensure that I get the exposure correct in the first place and of course I do have the option of exposure bracketing when in doubt.

.

Software also plays a part, but that part is independent of the sensor size.

 

[Ergellegre]

There's a bit of everything. For example. APSC and FF are capturing today 14-bit raw, while m43rds other than the GH5s 10 megapixel camera, are still capturing 12-bit raw. That makes a difference.

Yes. An imperceptible difference that 99.999% of people don't care about.

Why do you "defend" 12 bit sensor and that no one should really care about 14 bit?

Shouldn't it be "yes 4/3rd has less DR; however, it's an acceptable compromise for the following reasons..."?

Software also plays a part, but that part is independent of the sensor size.

No, none of that. Not even considering sensors, just the files that come out the back end of them. If there is a perceptible difference that I've missed, maybe someone will explain.

More DR representation, better tonality. More leeway in post processing. Depending what you are doing and your workflow and what you want your end result to be, this may matter.

Of course when a m43rds sensor comes with 14-bit raw and more DR I am sure you will say there's no perceptible difference either right? We should have stayed at 16 MP with AA filter, right? Why do HHR and sensor shift high resolution too while we are at it? Useless features...

Not quite. I'm fortunate enough to have a 10 bit monitor, and on it I've yet to see a 14 bit file that looks any better than a similar 12 bit file. I'm left with the impression the DR improvement is theoretical, but rarely realised.

I guess we both have irreconcilable different experiences. Both in looking, post processing and moment of capture. I mean, I am assuming you have used a 14-bit camera for real in the field?

Many.

good then we can’t agree

Either case, we can't agree here, so thanks for reading.

In some photos (depends on the photo of course) there's virtually no difference. In others you bump into more clipping or more "scrunged" tonality (m43rds). It's subtle but it's there. Whether that matters to you or me or someone else it's a different story.

Disclosure: I shoot m43rds.

This is my last reply about the subject with ya.

A lot of talk and no image samples. The problems you mention are commonly observed with 8bit and less files but if you have an example of 'scrunged' 12 bit images, please share.

And you won’t get any About 3-4 years ago I made the conscious choice not to indulge anyone here doing their homework or provide “so called evidence” because the vast majority of the time people would still cling to whatever they wanted to believe.

You can see I am not saying this out of convenience- if you look back to threads I have started and participated making efforts to provide evidence - and even asking people to verify for themselves- you can see the reality of this claim

The most recent time I made an exception last year when I posted Raws taken with the gm5 with and without e shutter to prove you lose about one stop dr when using its electronic shutter
Likewise - I understand and respect your skepticism if I don’t post anything - all you can do if so inclined is look at the times in the past I provided evidence and see if I have any credibility

I didn’t mean to reply once more but thought this was well clarifying

thanks for reading

You could just admit you've never actually noticed a difference.

2 more weeks of lockdown, be as stubborn as you like.

 

[SrMi]

Looking at the output, without looking at the camera source, I picked one image in each of the photos that really stood out to me, in a good way. Surprisingly enough, it was the Nikon, in every one.

I am just as much a fan of M43, for a lot of reasons, as any die-hard user of the format. And, for my purposes (macro and long tele), M43 fits my needs better than any FF, simply because the 20MP sensor is good enough, and there is no other format that has excellent very long lenses that are small.

However, where M43 does fall down is in tonal and color gradation, compared to FF sensors, and that's what jumped out at me in these images. Of course, I shoot things with lots of subtle tone and color shading, so I that is what I look for most in evaluating images on their technical qualities. But, system size trumps ultimate IQ for me, so I M43 it is. If I shot wide to normal, and I didn't mind larger grips and somewhat heavier gear, I'd be looking at the Nikon right now after seeing this comparison....

Your tonality and colour comment is an interesting point.

I was also intrigued by this issue 2 years ago and after some fiddling about found that I could get equally good results by adjusting processing curves, etc when editing. So I don't think the issue is intrinsic due to sensor size, but believe it must be a software/firmware choice on the part of the programmers.

There's a bit of everything. For example. APSC and FF are capturing today 14-bit raw, while m43rds other than the GH5s 10 megapixel camera, are still capturing 12-bit raw. That makes a difference.

Yet for critical display we use only 8bit.

Who is "we?" That's a lot of people. I heard some people still print and exhibit or sell in galleries? Also you miss one important point: Going from higher bit count to the 8 bits doesn't take away advantages from the higher bit count- you get to preserve more DR/tones values to begin with and from there downsample to the lower bits. This has benefits in post processing to get to those 8 bits.

Basically you can't convert to 8bits information you didn't have to begin with.

But if that seems a bit too theoretical- why on Earth is Olympus using 12 bits RAW and not 8-bit? Or Hasselblad/FUji bothering with 16 bit RAW? And why my Epson Photo R2280 driver has an option for 16-bit color?

It probably has more to do with marketing it to people. I know 8 bit only has 256 'grey' levels and that limitation certainly shows up quickly and clearly when harshly processing smooth gradation. But 12 bit is a massive leap. I expect my original G1 possibly had 10bit or less, but as long as I am careful with exposure, the images are fantastic.

14bits v 12bits will certainly slow down a camera and fill up a card quicker. But if marketing department says we need that selling point over practicality, they will win.

that’s assuming such cameras have no speed up circuitry the Fuji saves 14 but raws (as seen on x100v) really fast lossless compressed or not

I just looked up 12 bit, = over 4,000 shades of 'grey'. And a total of 68 billion shades of colour. Probably enough for most?

once again- sure depends on what you do smith 14bit you will have more leeway in post and keep more DR

a lot of people will be fine with 12 bits that’s fine all I am saying is there is a difference with higher nit count whether that makes a difference to you or me specifically is a different story

keep in mind you brought up the 8 it display thing- I was merely quickly lol ting out the fallacy in that logic

Fair enough..

But now you have piqued my interest in 12 v 24 bit, and during research found this very informative test report - field work not lab testing and for me it confirms why more than 12bit is overkill unless you accidentally underexpose by 4 stops or more and then it was virtually impossible to see a difference. In fact his conclusion was very interesting.

https://photographylife.com/14-bit-vs-12-bit-raw

That just one website. Ask yourself why MF Cameras are using now 16-bit color and why FF and APSC started to use 14-bit RAWs a while back. There's reasons from more leeway in processing, workflows and color.

Please note that Hasselblad X1D’s sensor delivers only 14 bit data, 16 bit output data is created artificially.

Looks like though there are some contradictions here/there, your statement seems correct. Thanks for bringing that up.

Fuji GFX 100 / 100s is used mostly in 14 bit mode even though the 100MP sensor is 16 bit. There is no reason to use 16 bit mode on Fuji GFX cameras (same reason why 12 bit makes sense for FF cameras at higher ISO).

? According to... ?

According to most GFX owners (including me), tests by Jim Kasson, and members of medium format forum here on DPR. 14-bit lossless compressed is the generally recommended raw file format. Nobody was yet able to show any advantage of 16 bit in combination with GFX 100 sensor, even once the banding was eliminated. Some continue to use 16 bit because memory is cheap.

You honestly think they are just doing this for the marketing of the bits? .

It never fails in this forum. "Good enough" seems to always stop at m43rds. Why does the GH5s has 14-bit? Someone started a thread with great color on that. Why would that be? Why have the 14-bits?

On exposure- remember when dealing with some landscapes shots, having the leeway in post can be important- for some. For some others not. It all depends on the individuals.

Finally that article is from 2015- it would be interesting to see how RAW converts and image editors have advanced in 6 years... and how they stress the flexibility of a richer information data file.

Good to have more info for a fuller picture here

https://petapixel.com/2018/09/19/8-12-14-vs-16-bit-depth-what-do-you-really-need/

You simply can't represent a wider range of DR with intermediate tones as well with less bits. It's that simple.

Of course, once again, that difference may not matter to you or someone else. Hey, I use m43rds 20 MP sensors as much as I can.

Software also plays a part, but that part is independent of the sensor size.

--
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

 

[Gnine]

Damn straight it's fine. Here's an out of camera G9 raw, converted to jpeg





And here it is very quickly edited, no noise reduction at all. Where's all this objectionable small sensor m4/3 noise from lifting shadows? The 20MP sensor is far better than just perfectly fine. It's excellent

 

[cameralight]

I think using suboptimal do review scenes to make that statement can sure lead to wrong conclusions also hardly exactly some real world situations regarding shadows highlight and tone and what about color moire?

Looking at the samples, the best IQ is definately coming from the Nikon, as it the most Moire. In these samples the one with the lease Moire is the Fuji, but it is also the softest, despite having the highest MP (I understand ACR is playing its part here).

You def. get less color moire with other better raw converters for the Fuji.

Simply put, it is complicated, but all these advantages as not as clear as the continual statements of an "outdated sensor", which was the entire premise of the post.

I think the sensor is outdated for the age and when comparing- the APSC Fuji is using ir more modern. And more details. But I wouldn't call the 20 MP useless at all -It's pretty good. I simply see advantages to the Fuji that are not simply "virtually negligible." But that's me obviously- but it sure follows the Physics. And 14-bit raw.

I accept the limitations and still I am using the 20 MP sensor. All these have pros and cons. I understand your point on the "outdated sensor." Likewise, I think there's something to the Fuji sensor that simply has better image quality- if you are ok with the tradeoffs.

Certainly - and that’s why each system has pros and cons. But saying that the difference is negligible or can’t be seen is a bit much of speaking for others.

I am not saying it, I am showing it. Many can argue all they like, and here on DPR often do. But as the saying goes, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

You are saying it. You are not taking pictures on more extreme conditions. The other time you did this, was in a nice studio light setup where all the DR and tone and ISO falls in m43rds sensor. No wonder "you can't see a difference."

Now, why don't you borrow an X100V and shoot it in high contrast situation- both cameras, see how much highlight and tone and detail you can capture. It's not a massive difference but it's there. And whether that matters to you or not or someone else, depends on each individual.

So basically I agree with you the 20 MP sensor is quite capable. I disagree with you in pretending the Fuji APSC (ditto for the FF) "I just the same/we don't need more etc." argument. I am sure if a 24 MP m43rds sensor with 14-bit raw came out today with one more stop DR you wouldn't be complaining about it.

Do this, see it for yourself. No nice studio lit just situations. Shoot a high contrast landscape. Play with Fuji's 400% DR capture and see how easy it's to recover highlights. Etc.

The issue I have is the contrive selective evidence to prove there's no difference or "virtually negligible." That's not the case depending what you are doing- and what you want to do- and what trade offs you want to accept.

According to Bill Claff's measured dynamic range data, the difference in dynamic range appears to be pretty negligible.

Just because the OP has a different opinion to your own, I don't think you're justified in saying he's "contriv[ing] selective evidence". People are allowed to have different opinions to your own, especially when they back up their assertions.