The hour of truth has struck

[Maoby]

Is it better to use a mini µ4 / 3 format or a large FF format?
20 MP is enough, or is it better to have 36 MP and more ...

You can find your own answer here

Nikon D810 (2014) / Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II (2016)

www.flickr.com/photos/maoby/albums/with/72157720167698554

www.flickr.com

Nikon D810 (2014)
36.3 MP (7360 x 4912) FF CMOS sensor (35.9 x 24 mm)
Price: $ 3,300.00 USD
Photos taken with the nikkor AF-S 85mm f / 1.8 G
(multiplication factor of 1.0)
ISO 64-12800 (32-51200)

_______________________

Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II (2016)
20 MP (5184 x3888) µ4 / 3 (13 x 17.4) sensor
Price: $ 2,000.00 USD
Photos were taken with the Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm f / 1.8
(multiplication factor of 2.0)
ISO 200-25600 (64)


Nikon D810 (2014) / Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II (2016)


N°01 Nikon D810 (2014)


N°01 Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II (2016)



N°05 Nikon D810 (2014)


N°05 Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II (2016)

Nikon D810 (2014) / Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II (2016)

www.flickr.com/photos/maoby/albums/with/72157720167698554

www.flickr.com

For me, the answer is finally obvious!

--

Self DSLR & ML Cameras

1991-2022 ...

www.flickr.com

https://www.instagram.com/maoby_digital_camera/

 

[jalywol]

What "truth"?

I wish people would stop trying to insist that M43 is all things to all photographers.

It's a great format, and it has many advantages in many situations. But, so does FF. And you do both a disservice by trying to equate them.

Guess what? Most cameras are pretty good these days. But if you are shooting in situations where one system is stronger than the other, then you will make yourself utterly nuts trying to get what you need from the other system.

Case in point: I use both M43 and FF. I can take my GX9 out with the PL 100-400mm, and walk around with it in the woods, and get bird and other wildlife shots without arguing with my back or wrists about the weight. To get that reach on a FF, I would be looking at over 4lbs of lens, vs 2 (with a much lighter camera body). Big difference.

On the other hand, for delicate flower work, the FF has an advantage. I can shoot at ISO 800 without even thinking about noise and loss of detail, and the tonal and color gradation captured by the FF sensors is just better in these situations, as there are enormous color variations in flower petals that are very difficult for smaller sensors to capture (this is where more photons really matter). M43 can be very close in just the right light, and at base ISO it's very good, but anywhere north of that in this kind of shooting tests the limits of the system, and FF makes much more sense in this case.

So, these comparisons mean...nothing.

Pick the gear for what and how you shoot, and be happy.

-J

 

[Maoby]

You are 100% right and answer my title exactly. ;-)
I use the different formats, for much the same reasons as you, or almost!

Where for me the comparisons become useful, it is to demonstrate by example the evolution of the different sensors, through the history of different formats from 1991 to the present day.
And to respond to reactions that are often false and erroneous, that can be seen regularly on the web.
I have over 240 comparisons to my credit here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/maoby/albums/page2

Thank you very much for your feedback, it is greatly appreciated!

 

[bmoag]

The differences between sensor sizes for most uses amounts to the difference between what you need and what you want.

 

[john isaacs]

What "truth"?

I wish people would stop trying to insist that M43 is all things to all photographers.

It's a great format, and it has many advantages in many situations. But, so does FF. And you do both a disservice by trying to equate them.

Guess what? Most cameras are pretty good these days. But if you are shooting in situations where one system is stronger than the other, then you will make yourself utterly nuts trying to get what you need from the other system.

Case in point: I use both M43 and FF. I can take my GX9 out with the PL 100-400mm, and walk around with it in the woods, and get bird and other wildlife shots without arguing with my back or wrists about the weight. To get that reach on a FF, I would be looking at over 4lbs of lens, vs 2 (with a much lighter camera body). Big difference.

On the other hand, for delicate flower work, the FF has an advantage. I can shoot at ISO 800 without even thinking about noise and loss of detail, and the tonal and color gradation captured by the FF sensors is just better in these situations, as there are enormous color variations in flower petals that are very difficult for smaller sensors to capture (this is where more photons really matter). M43 can be very close in just the right light, and at base ISO it's very good, but anywhere north of that in this kind of shooting tests the limits of the system, and FF makes much more sense in this case.

So, these comparisons mean...nothing.

Pick the gear for what and how you shoot, and be happy.

-J

This is how you get FF to M43 equivalent images:

FF: f/16, ISO 800

M43: f/8, ISO 200

Both shots have equivalent DOF and are at the point where diffraction starts to be an issue.

I shoot M43 and FF as well, but I generally prefer the shooting experience with Olympus so that is my most used system.

It used to be that to shoot sports, wildlife, dance, etc. I needed to use FF. That is less the case now, so I do more with M43. It used to be that I would still shoot M43 for the electronic shutter to avoid the noise of DSLRs (mirror slap, mechanical shutter), but that is less of an issue now (although FF mirrorless does not compare to M43 at similar price points).

I have two criteria: right tool for the job, and to I find the user interface more "usable".

Even now, getting things done that I want done is usually easier with Olympus than other systems.

 

[laikam]

This is a typical “I am bored thread”…. best give yourself a uppercut

 

[Maoby]

You seem to forget the power of marketing, trends, influencers, false information circulating!
And the lack of knowledge of a very large number of users who are completely dumped.

 

[Shadowsurfer]

The truth is that the quality of a lot of pictures is compromised by:

Bad hurried composition and/or lack understanding regarding the language of the image .

Pictures in taken in unsuitable lighting conditions.

Pictures taken using unsuitable shutter speed or aperture.

The photographer got the exposure wrong.

Boring or hackneyed subject matter

The photographer has not understood what he is photographing, dance photography is a good example.

The photographer is not really interested in what he is photographing( it shows to sombody who is).

Sensor size comes way down the list and may or may not be important regarding the success in using a photograph to communicate with the viewer.

 

[Maoby]

A perfect example of one who does not understand, or who prefers not to understand.

 

[Monty71]

The hour of truth struck when your neighbor saw you in the yard taking photos of those tiny nude dolls

 

[Maoby]

Your avatar looks great on you

You are right, it is better to do nothing in life.
And despise his neighbor

 

[Maoby]

Puritan the gentleman!

 

[laikam]

A perfect example of one who does not understand, or who prefers not to understand.

You are just another hack poster like the rest of us with no knowledge of the finances OMD works under thus not qualified to tell OMD how it needs to go about its business

Stay retired it’s easier

ps are you buying a couple of each of your proposals ?

 

[Regor250]

I would buy a FF kit if it were the size of my EM10MK1/ 17mm/1.8 combo... I think it might be a while before I do however!

 

[Simon97]

I like the idea of that camera. It is a compact full frame. BUT, it isn't cheap (to me) and replicating my MFT lenses would be even costlier and the lenses larger.

I'm a casual shooter and more than happy with MFT, so why would I even bother? I know there are people with deep pockets (or who are foolish with their money) and buy a bunch of cameras or switch systems to the latest and greatest but for me, NO WAY! I now shoot with the worst rated camera of 2020, the G100, and I love it!

 

[Maoby]

Sorry I can't see what you're talking about.

 

[Maoby]

Everything is possible, Looked at the size of the Minox 35 EL (1974) it was a 24x36

https://flic.kr/p/mzJBdt

 

[Maoby]

In the end, it is not the most important camera, but the person who handles it

 

[Dan]

I found the Nikon 85f1.8 G to purple fringe like crazy wide open...stay away from f1.8.

Other wise your model is hot if not a little too pale for my taste.

 

[mostlyboringphotog]

What "truth"?

I wish people would stop trying to insist that M43 is all things to all photographers.

It's a great format, and it has many advantages in many situations. But, so does FF. And you do both a disservice by trying to equate them.

Guess what? Most cameras are pretty good these days. But if you are shooting in situations where one system is stronger than the other, then you will make yourself utterly nuts trying to get what you need from the other system.

Case in point: I use both M43 and FF. I can take my GX9 out with the PL 100-400mm, and walk around with it in the woods, and get bird and other wildlife shots without arguing with my back or wrists about the weight. To get that reach on a FF, I would be looking at over 4lbs of lens, vs 2 (with a much lighter camera body). Big difference.

On the other hand, for delicate flower work, the FF has an advantage. I can shoot at ISO 800 without even thinking about noise and loss of detail, and the tonal and color gradation captured by the FF sensors is just better in these situations, as there are enormous color variations in flower petals that are very difficult for smaller sensors to capture (this is where more photons really matter). M43 can be very close in just the right light, and at base ISO it's very good, but anywhere north of that in this kind of shooting tests the limits of the system, and FF makes much more sense in this case.

So, these comparisons mean...nothing.

Pick the gear for what and how you shoot, and be happy.

-J

This is how you get FF to M43 equivalent images:

FF: f/16, ISO 800

M43: f/8, ISO 200

Both shots have equivalent DOF and are at the point where diffraction starts to be an issue.

This is true but not the whole truth.

With high MP count FF sensors, even at the equivalence, it provides more resolution. I point this out not because this makes FF a "better" camera ("better" camera is the one that suits your need/want the best) but to illustrate what is not equivalent.

Processed with DxO PL4 w/DeepPRIME NR


A7R3 ISO6400 M1.3 ISO 1600

Note the hatching mark on the man's sleeve in the drawing and more smoother tonality.

I shoot M43 and FF as well, but I generally prefer the shooting experience with Olympus so that is my most used system.

It used to be that to shoot sports, wildlife, dance, etc. I needed to use FF. That is less the case now, so I do more with M43. It used to be that I would still shoot M43 for the electronic shutter to avoid the noise of DSLRs (mirror slap, mechanical shutter), but that is less of an issue now (although FF mirrorless does not compare to M43 at similar price points).

I have two criteria: right tool for the job, and to I find the user interface more "usable".

Even now, getting things done that I want done is usually easier with Olympus than other systems.

True.

FF cannot beat my PEN-F with 14-150mm lens for carry anywhere camera but phone cam image is getting better also, so I'm not sure how much longer I would feel the desire to carry around PEN-F :-(

My intention is to point out TIQ (Technical Image Quality) difference of FF sensor cameras for those who think that because of DOF, camera performances are equal.

What that difference means is really up to the individual photographers.

--
My gear list is the opinion of DPR and not necessarily of my own.