Thoughts from those using both m43 and Full Frame DSLRs - that certain something?

[robonrome]

Bernard Carns wrote:

Call it the tone curve or whatever you want.

When I want the utmust in quality I shoot my 5d2.

When I want speed I shoot my 7d.

When I want creativity and unusual points of view I shoot one of mh GH2s or my GH1.

But when it comes down to pure image quality and bokeh, the 5d2 always wins.

A Chevy, a Corvette, a Ferrari.

They're all cars.

But not the same for sure.

Can't give up my FF 5d2.

Can't give up m4/3 either.

At least they all exist.

i think this says it all for me and most closely matches how i feel. again i should count my lucky stars i have such choices and can afford both. my challenge is in being more decisive about which system ks best suited to what i'm about to do.

 

[robonrome]

Najinsky wrote:

The first is Aperture/diffraction. Most/many M.4/3 lenses are optimal around F/5.6, with diffraction also kicking in by F8. With the base iso starting at 160, in bright Asian light there's a good chance you were at F8 and beyond, missing the lens sweet spot and suffering some diffraction. A good quality ND filter may have helped.

Next, dynamic range (exposure range). I was very disappointed with my GH2 in Asia, always fighting the bright highlights. I'm much happier with the results I'm getting with my OM-D. There was close to a stop more highlight recovery in the 5D2 over the GH2 which mean't different shooting techniques, but still, nearly all my good GH2 results came from UK shoots or less bright Asian scenes (shade/canopy). Again, perhaps considering filters more would have helped.

Next, light/time of day. This carries on from the DR comment. You said your 5D shots were more likely from longer breaks such as towards the end of day. Obviously the light towards the end of day is more interesting than broad daylight, and nothing impacts the quality of a photo more than the quality of the light.

Shutter shock. The extra bulk of the 5D2 acts as a shock absorber and all but eliminates camera induced motion blur at normal shutter speeds. The lightweight of M.4/3 sometimes acts to its detriment.The 1/FL rule of thumb needs adjusting when you use M.4/3.

The lenses. Despite the current fashion for bashing Canon, they make some exceptionally fine lenses, including that TS-E24mm you have. I have the TS-E90mm and the rendering is like nothing else I've seen. I can easily tell my TS-E shots from a great distance. It's not ideal for every shot, sometimes it's too sharp / contrasty and spoils the scene, other times it makes it.

I love my OM-D and the newer high quality lenses and I'm happy shooting it daily. But I've not abandoned FF.

When I look through my collection, my most stand out images come from my original 5D, which just has a special rendering. The 5D2 added lots of better features and is an all round better camera, but it lost a little something in the rendering over the original.-Najinsky

thanks najinski for some truly insightful comments. i'm sure elements of each of these thoughts are in play here. good to know too that you feel here is a niche for both m43 and FF in your shooting. after a year of twin systems hoping one would make itself felt as the obvious one system for me i'm coming to accept i really want both for different reasons and will continue with both ... at least till financial ruin forces a choice .

BTW have you looked at the 5d3 ? some have commented that it is closer in its rendering to the original 5d than the 5d2?

 

[robonrome]

Fotoloco wrote:

Interesting thread.

I have ended up with a D4, OMD, and RX100. Love them all.

I use the D4 for planned paid portraits and when I want/need 300mm or 420mm focal length. Otherwise it is the other two. While I have not done any kind of side by side or controlled shooting comparing the two, I do sometimes think after looking at the images from the OMD that the D4 may have produced an image that was just a little more pleasing. That is only based on years of shooting with FF and kind of knowing what the images will print like when I take them.

I think many of us have spent so much time an angsting over the switch and rationalizing that it is OK or equal or whatever to make ourselves ok with the decision that we forget that there are some differences.

another good point. i hear many (myself included) talking of how m43 is 90%, 95% 99% etc of the IQ of full frame, and this is probably true, but it's easy to forget that sometimes that few % might make the difference between good and great - certainly not as much as the photographer's eye, but it is there.

 

[robonrome]

Thomas Kachadurian wrote:

sansbury wrote:

Maybe you made a point of dragging out the beast when you knew you were heading into a prime shooting situation?

Exactly.

I did this experiment: One trip with just a 5D2 and lenses (15, 21, 40, 70-200) and one trip with just a GH2 and lenses (7.5, 9-18, 25, and 45-200). The canon lenses were the better kit.

From the FF kit a got a few very crisp detailed images, but nothing "better" than the M43 photos. With the M43 I got more, and more interesting shots because I shot longer and was less tired from carrying hardware. For me, for travel the M43 images were better because I never left the camera behind. Never. One of the best shots of the trip was during dinner at dusk. I would not have brought the Canon to dinner.

As the M43 lenses get better the difference in those few super detailed shots will be less. The 45-200 is not a poor lens but a 35-100 would be more equal to the 70-200 I use with my Canon kit.

Tom

www.kachadurian.com
Call me crazy. I happen to like photos of cats.

this is a test i should do - a good test too as i'll end up with pictures of something other than brick walls! i have the 45-200 and it's not a bad lens, but the 70-300L is pretty hard to compete with. like you i have high hopes the 35-100 might be the key to equivalent zoom quality with m43 innlonger focal lengths

 

[robonrome]

TrapperJohn wrote:

I've been a long time full size 4/3 system user. And stuck with that system for a long time despite the mediocre sensor performance for... that 'certain something' that the exquisitely sharp fast ZD zooms delivered. Hard to describe, but defintely there, it's sort of a '3D' look to the shots, especially prevalent in lower light situations: what's sharp is very sharp, what's out of focus is very smooth. Really makes the in focus areas leap out at you. Not sure why... possibly because they're fast zooms in the F2-F2.8 range, possibly because that glass has a telecentric design, maybe Oly had elves at the factory sprinkling pixie dust on the lenses. What I do know is that the ZD zooms I've had, have all been the class of their field.

It's why I kept all of those lenses when I got the EM5, despite the fact that they AF slowly on the EM5, despite the fact that they're larger. I find it easier to work around a larger lens or a slower focusing lens than to work around loss of sharpness, and loss of that certain, almost indescribable quality that those lenses deliver.

While this isn't exactly the same as comparing M43 to the better FF, it's there. M43 zooms, while definitely smaller, just don't quite compare to the best 4/3 ZD and PL zooms in the IQ department. Example: my MZD 14-150 is a convenient lens, while the larger and faster 4/3 PL14-150 is a dazzling lens. I've seen quite a few 'oh wow' shots taken with it. The better fast primes for M43: 12 2.0, 25 1.4, 45 1.8, 75 1.8, do seem to exhibit this same excellence.

In a way, this works out very nicely. I can go ultra portable and ultra discreet with M43 zooms, ultra portable with framing inconvenience with fast M43 primes, or somewhat portable with framing ease and AF inconvience with the fast ZD zooms. All with the same body.

And the 4/3 ZD zooms are selling for very nice prices today, courtesy of the uncertainty over the larger 4/3 system future. I expect their used price to rise when the OMD-Pro with PDAF on sensor comes out - it will AF that glass quickly.

i think your're right and that the oly zd glass has that certain something over most of the m43 range at least in zooms and this may be similar to what i'm perceiving between m43 and FF. i think i'd miss the af performance, but as you suggest a new omd version with PDAF migh change that.

 

[Great Bustard]

robonrome wrote:

Fotoloco wrote:

Interesting thread.

I have ended up with a D4, OMD, and RX100. Love them all.

I use the D4 for planned paid portraits and when I want/need 300mm or 420mm focal length. Otherwise it is the other two. While I have not done any kind of side by side or controlled shooting comparing the two, I do sometimes think after looking at the images from the OMD that the D4 may have produced an image that was just a little more pleasing. That is only based on years of shooting with FF and kind of knowing what the images will print like when I take them.

I think many of us have spent so much time an angsting over the switch and rationalizing that it is OK or equal or whatever to make ourselves ok with the decision that we forget that there are some differences.

another good point. i hear many (myself included) talking of how m43 is 90%, 95% 99% etc of the IQ of full frame, and this is probably true, but it's easy to forget that sometimes that few % might make the difference between good and great - certainly not as much as the photographer's eye, but it is there.

I've seen photos where poor IQ sapped any chance of it being "great", but I've never seen a photo where a minor difference in IQ separated "good" from "great".

Furthermore, I've seen tons of great photos where IQ didn't play any significant role in their "greatness" at all -- pretty much any camera would have done.

In general, "high IQ" is only "necessary" for photos that are what I like to call "eye candy". However, there are those times when an otherwise great photo is ruined by "low IQ", but it's not often, and it's never by a minor difference in IQ.

 

[Anders W]

Great Bustard wrote:

robonrome wrote:

Fotoloco wrote:

Interesting thread.

I have ended up with a D4, OMD, and RX100. Love them all.

I use the D4 for planned paid portraits and when I want/need 300mm or 420mm focal length. Otherwise it is the other two. While I have not done any kind of side by side or controlled shooting comparing the two, I do sometimes think after looking at the images from the OMD that the D4 may have produced an image that was just a little more pleasing. That is only based on years of shooting with FF and kind of knowing what the images will print like when I take them.

I think many of us have spent so much time an angsting over the switch and rationalizing that it is OK or equal or whatever to make ourselves ok with the decision that we forget that there are some differences.

another good point. i hear many (myself included) talking of how m43 is 90%, 95% 99% etc of the IQ of full frame, and this is probably true, but it's easy to forget that sometimes that few % might make the difference between good and great - certainly not as much as the photographer's eye, but it is there.

I've seen photos where poor IQ sapped any chance of it being "great", but I've never seen a photo where a minor difference in IQ separated "good" from "great".

Furthermore, I've seen tons of great photos where IQ didn't play any significant role in their "greatness" at all -- pretty much any camera would have done.

In general, "high IQ" is only "necessary" for photos that are what I like to call "eye candy". However, there are those times when an otherwise great photo is ruined by "low IQ", but it's not often, and it's never by a minor difference in IQ.

Always nice to hear the voice of reason and judgment in a word so full of hyperventilation.

 

[robonrome]

Great Bustard wrote:

robonrome wrote:

Fotoloco wrote:

Interesting thread.

I have ended up with a D4, OMD, and RX100. Love them all.

I use the D4 for planned paid portraits and when I want/need 300mm or 420mm focal length. Otherwise it is the other two. While I have not done any kind of side by side or controlled shooting comparing the two, I do sometimes think after looking at the images from the OMD that the D4 may have produced an image that was just a little more pleasing. That is only based on years of shooting with FF and kind of knowing what the images will print like when I take them.

I think many of us have spent so much time an angsting over the switch and rationalizing that it is OK or equal or whatever to make ourselves ok with the decision that we forget that there are some differences.

another good point. i hear many (myself included) talking of how m43 is 90%, 95% 99% etc of the IQ of full frame, and this is probably true, but it's easy to forget that sometimes that few % might make the difference between good and great - certainly not as much as the photographer's eye, but it is there.

I've seen photos where poor IQ sapped any chance of it being "great", but I've never seen a photo where a minor difference in IQ separated "good" from "great".

Furthermore, I've seen tons of great photos where IQ didn't play any significant role in their "greatness" at all -- pretty much any camera would have done.

In general, "high IQ" is only "necessary" for photos that are what I like to call "eye candy". However, there are those times when an otherwise great photo is ruined by "low IQ", but it's not often, and it's never by a minor difference in IQ.

i get what you're saying,and i essentially agree which is why i said this IQ difference certainly wasn't asimportant as the photographers eye (perhaps i should add here subject matter as well). maybe it's too strong to say small difference in IQ can make the difference between good and great - it might be closer to the truth to say it might make the difference between a mediocre and a good shot, but i guess everyone will have slightly different perceptions of what this means.

 

[Great Bustard]

Anders W wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

robonrome wrote:

Fotoloco wrote:

Interesting thread.

I have ended up with a D4, OMD, and RX100. Love them all.

I use the D4 for planned paid portraits and when I want/need 300mm or 420mm focal length. Otherwise it is the other two. While I have not done any kind of side by side or controlled shooting comparing the two, I do sometimes think after looking at the images from the OMD that the D4 may have produced an image that was just a little more pleasing. That is only based on years of shooting with FF and kind of knowing what the images will print like when I take them.

I think many of us have spent so much time an angsting over the switch and rationalizing that it is OK or equal or whatever to make ourselves ok with the decision that we forget that there are some differences.

another good point. i hear many (myself included) talking of how m43 is 90%, 95% 99% etc of the IQ of full frame, and this is probably true, but it's easy to forget that sometimes that few % might make the difference between good and great - certainly not as much as the photographer's eye, but it is there.

I've seen photos where poor IQ sapped any chance of it being "great", but I've never seen a photo where a minor difference in IQ separated "good" from "great".

Furthermore, I've seen tons of great photos where IQ didn't play any significant role in their "greatness" at all -- pretty much any camera would have done.

In general, "high IQ" is only "necessary" for photos that are what I like to call "eye candy". However, there are those times when an otherwise great photo is ruined by "low IQ", but it's not often, and it's never by a minor difference in IQ.

Always nice to hear the voice of reason and judgment in a word so full of hyperventilation.

Heh! Let me post a link to exactly what I'm talking about:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/39831113

There we see a "low IQ" photo and a "high IQ" photo of the same scene, which are simply different -- one is not "better" than the other. Oddly enough, some of my best photos also have the worst IQ.

I would argue that "great photographs" rarely, if ever, depend on the IQ of the photo:

http://www.google.com/search?q=grea...a=X&ei=seo9Trklh66xArqRkR4&sqi=2&ved=0CBoQsAQ

but rather the scene that is captured and the circumstances in which it was captured.

It is the "not-so-great photographs" that are ubiquitous here on DPR and elsewhere that often rely on IQ to make them "successful".

 

[Great Bustard]

robonrome wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

robonrome wrote:

Fotoloco wrote:

Interesting thread.

I have ended up with a D4, OMD, and RX100. Love them all.

I use the D4 for planned paid portraits and when I want/need 300mm or 420mm focal length. Otherwise it is the other two. While I have not done any kind of side by side or controlled shooting comparing the two, I do sometimes think after looking at the images from the OMD that the D4 may have produced an image that was just a little more pleasing. That is only based on years of shooting with FF and kind of knowing what the images will print like when I take them.

I think many of us have spent so much time an angsting over the switch and rationalizing that it is OK or equal or whatever to make ourselves ok with the decision that we forget that there are some differences.

another good point. i hear many (myself included) talking of how m43 is 90%, 95% 99% etc of the IQ of full frame, and this is probably true, but it's easy to forget that sometimes that few % might make the difference between good and great - certainly not as much as the photographer's eye, but it is there.

I've seen photos where poor IQ sapped any chance of it being "great", but I've never seen a photo where a minor difference in IQ separated "good" from "great".

Furthermore, I've seen tons of great photos where IQ didn't play any significant role in their "greatness" at all -- pretty much any camera would have done.

In general, "high IQ" is only "necessary" for photos that are what I like to call "eye candy". However, there are those times when an otherwise great photo is ruined by "low IQ", but it's not often, and it's never by a minor difference in IQ.

i get what you're saying,and i essentially agree which is why i said this IQ difference certainly wasn't asimportant as the photographers eye (perhaps i should add here subject matter as well). maybe it's too strong to say small difference in IQ can make the difference between good and great - it might be closer to the truth to say it might make the difference between a mediocre and a good shot, but i guess everyone will have slightly different perceptions of what this means.

Honestly, even the difference between "mediocre" and "good" would require a rather substantial differential in IQ, in my opinion, if "higher IQ" would help at all.

Truth be told, I cannot think of a single medicre photo I have ever seen (and boy have I seen a lot of those!) that would have become "good" with "higher IQ". What I have seen, but rarely, is photos that would have been good (or great, even), but were ruined by low IQ. But that IQ differential was substantial, not a few percentage points here and there.

Here's an example of what would have been a great photo that was ruined by "low IQ" (click the link, and then click the photo to see the fullsize version):

http://www.dpreview.com/challenges/Entry.aspx?ID=277391&View=Results&Rows=4

'Course, "bad", "mediocre", "good", and "great" are all subjective, so what I consider "ruined", another might consider "great".

 

[WT21]

Great Bustard wrote:
'Course, "bad", "mediocre", "good", and "great" are all subjective, so what I consider "ruined", another might consider "great".

Absolutely. I shoot FF because it accomplishes what I want. I don't care if anyone else thinks it's good/bad/great/terrible. I shoot for myself, and what I want to do, I can do more easily with my 5D.

But, when I am traveling, I don't want the big bag.

 

[robonrome]

Great Bustard wrote:

robonrome wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

robonrome wrote:

Fotoloco wrote:

Interesting thread.

I have ended up with a D4, OMD, and RX100. Love them all.

I use the D4 for planned paid portraits and when I want/need 300mm or 420mm focal length. Otherwise it is the other two. While I have not done any kind of side by side or controlled shooting comparing the two, I do sometimes think after looking at the images from the OMD that the D4 may have produced an image that was just a little more pleasing. That is only based on years of shooting with FF and kind of knowing what the images will print like when I take them.

I think many of us have spent so much time an angsting over the switch and rationalizing that it is OK or equal or whatever to make ourselves ok with the decision that we forget that there are some differences.

another good point. i hear many (myself included) talking of how m43 is 90%, 95% 99% etc of the IQ of full frame, and this is probably true, but it's easy to forget that sometimes that few % might make the difference between good and great - certainly not as much as the photographer's eye, but it is there.

I've seen photos where poor IQ sapped any chance of it being "great", but I've never seen a photo where a minor difference in IQ separated "good" from "great".

Furthermore, I've seen tons of great photos where IQ didn't play any significant role in their "greatness" at all -- pretty much any camera would have done.

In general, "high IQ" is only "necessary" for photos that are what I like to call "eye candy". However, there are those times when an otherwise great photo is ruined by "low IQ", but it's not often, and it's never by a minor difference in IQ.

i get what you're saying,and i essentially agree which is why i said this IQ difference certainly wasn't asimportant as the photographers eye (perhaps i should add here subject matter as well). maybe it's too strong to say small difference in IQ can make the difference between good and great - it might be closer to the truth to say it might make the difference between a mediocre and a good shot, but i guess everyone will have slightly different perceptions of what this means.

Honestly, even the difference between "mediocre" and "good" would require a rather substantial differential in IQ, in my opinion, if "higher IQ" would help at all.

Truth be told, I cannot think of a single medicre photo I have ever seen (and boy have I seen a lot of those!) that would have become "good" with "higher IQ". What I have seen, but rarely, is photos that would have been good (or great, even), but were ruined by low IQ. But that IQ differential was substantial, not a few percentage points here and there.

Here's an example of what would have been a great photo that was ruined by "low IQ" (click the link, and then click the photo to see the fullsize version):

http://www.dpreview.com/challenges/Entry.aspx?ID=277391&View=Results&Rows=4

'Course, "bad", "mediocre", "good", and "great" are all subjective, so what I consider "ruined", another might consider "great".

i was with you on this until i saw the image you linked. the only technical IQ issues i can see with that (slight softness, noise and perhaps slight blowing of highlights dont to my eye detract from that particular image...it works. an example i guess of the subjectivenss of these qualitie you note.

 

[Great Bustard]

robonrome wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Honestly, even the difference between "mediocre" and "good" would require a rather substantial differential in IQ, in my opinion, if "higher IQ" would help at all.

Truth be told, I cannot think of a single medicre photo I have ever seen (and boy have I seen a lot of those!) that would have become "good" with "higher IQ". What I have seen, but rarely, is photos that would have been good (or great, even), but were ruined by low IQ. But that IQ differential was substantial, not a few percentage points here and there.

Here's an example of what would have been a great photo that was ruined by "low IQ" (click the link, and then click the photo to see the fullsize version):

http://www.dpreview.com/challenges/Entry.aspx?ID=277391&View=Results&Rows=4

'Course, "bad", "mediocre", "good", and "great" are all subjective, so what I consider "ruined", another might consider "great".

i was with you on this until i saw the image you linked. the only technical IQ issues i can see with that (slight softness, noise and perhaps slight blowing of highlights dont to my eye detract from that particular image...it works. an example i guess of the subjectivenss of these qualitie you note.

Did you click on the uplaoded photo? Here:

http://masters.galleries.dpreview.c...520698&Signature=pVwHbl1UNC2GIbviBijOVk+ftBY=

How large do you think you could print that and the photo would retain the appeal that the smaller photo has? To me, display size is absolutely a huge factor in the IQ of a photo. A photo that looks great as a thumbnail but falls apart in a 13x19 inch print doesn't "earn" the title of "great".

But, as you note, absolutely, it is subjective. For some, that fullsize photo printed large would not degrade the impact of the photo whatsoever. In fact, I have a story about that.

A while ago, Target was selling these framed photos. One looked gorgeous -- a BW photo of a lone tree in a winter scene at something like 24x36 inches. I walked over to take a closer look, and rather than seeing more and more detail as I approached, the posterization of a low res digital photo became more and more apparent. What was great from 10 ft away was disappointing at 3 ft.

Still, that photo was selling at Target, and none of mine are, so what does that tell us?

 

[robonrome]

Great Bustard wrote:

robonrome wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Honestly, even the difference between "mediocre" and "good" would require a rather substantial differential in IQ, in my opinion, if "higher IQ" would help at all.

Truth be told, I cannot think of a single medicre photo I have ever seen (and boy have I seen a lot of those!) that would have become "good" with "higher IQ". What I have seen, but rarely, is photos that would have been good (or great, even), but were ruined by low IQ. But that IQ differential was substantial, not a few percentage points here and there.

Here's an example of what would have been a great photo that was ruined by "low IQ" (click the link, and then click the photo to see the fullsize version):

http://www.dpreview.com/challenges/Entry.aspx?ID=277391&View=Results&Rows=4

'Course, "bad", "mediocre", "good", and "great" are all subjective, so what I consider "ruined", another might consider "great".

i was with you on this until i saw the image you linked. the only technical IQ issues i can see with that (slight softness, noise and perhaps slight blowing of highlights dont to my eye detract from that particular image...it works. an example i guess of the subjectivenss of these qualitie you note.

Did you click on the uplaoded photo? Here:

http://masters.galleries.dpreview.c...520698&Signature=pVwHbl1UNC2GIbviBijOVk+ftBY=

How large do you think you could print that and the photo would retain the appeal that the smaller photo has? To me, display size is absolutely a huge factor in the IQ of a photo. A photo that looks great as a thumbnail but falls apart in a 13x19 inch print doesn't "earn" the title of "great".

But, as you note, absolutely, it is subjective. For some, that fullsize photo printed large would not degrade the impact of the photo whatsoever. In fact, I have a story about that.

A while ago, Target was selling these framed photos. One looked gorgeous -- a BW photo of a lone tree in a winter scene at something like 24x36 inches. I walked over to take a closer look, and rather than seeing more and more detail as I approached, the posterization of a low res digital photo became more and more apparent. What was great from 10 ft away was disappointing at 3 ft.

Still, that photo was selling at Target, and none of mine are, so what does that tell us?

ok i clicked on the uploaded image and it does show up more noise - im viewing on a tablet so a bit limiting. it still works for me but i cant say from what i see how large it could be pushed. in any case i'm a long way from seeing my photos for sale at target. i'm still working to achieve my first great image. i have what i feel to be quite a few good images but none what i'd regard as great.

 

[Great Bustard]

robonrome wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

robonrome wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Honestly, even the difference between "mediocre" and "good" would require a rather substantial differential in IQ, in my opinion, if "higher IQ" would help at all.

Truth be told, I cannot think of a single medicre photo I have ever seen (and boy have I seen a lot of those!) that would have become "good" with "higher IQ". What I have seen, but rarely, is photos that would have been good (or great, even), but were ruined by low IQ. But that IQ differential was substantial, not a few percentage points here and there.

Here's an example of what would have been a great photo that was ruined by "low IQ" (click the link, and then click the photo to see the fullsize version):

http://www.dpreview.com/challenges/Entry.aspx?ID=277391&View=Results&Rows=4

'Course, "bad", "mediocre", "good", and "great" are all subjective, so what I consider "ruined", another might consider "great".

i was with you on this until i saw the image you linked. the only technical IQ issues i can see with that (slight softness, noise and perhaps slight blowing of highlights dont to my eye detract from that particular image...it works. an example i guess of the subjectivenss of these qualitie you note.

Did you click on the uplaoded photo? Here:

http://masters.galleries.dpreview.c...520698&Signature=pVwHbl1UNC2GIbviBijOVk+ftBY=

How large do you think you could print that and the photo would retain the appeal that the smaller photo has? To me, display size is absolutely a huge factor in the IQ of a photo. A photo that looks great as a thumbnail but falls apart in a 13x19 inch print doesn't "earn" the title of "great".

But, as you note, absolutely, it is subjective. For some, that fullsize photo printed large would not degrade the impact of the photo whatsoever. In fact, I have a story about that.

A while ago, Target was selling these framed photos. One looked gorgeous -- a BW photo of a lone tree in a winter scene at something like 24x36 inches. I walked over to take a closer look, and rather than seeing more and more detail as I approached, the posterization of a low res digital photo became more and more apparent. What was great from 10 ft away was disappointing at 3 ft.

Still, that photo was selling at Target, and none of mine are, so what does that tell us?

ok i clicked on the uploaded image and it does show up more noise - im viewing on a tablet so a bit limiting. it still works for me but i cant say from what i see how large it could be pushed. in any case i'm a long way from seeing my photos for sale at target. i'm still working to achieve my first great image. i have what i feel to be quite a few good images but none what i'd regard as great.

I don't have any photos I'd call "great" -- I've seen too many great photos to be so vain. But, some of my very best photos have horrible IQ, yet none of my mediocre pics or bad pics would have been better with a little bit more IQ (unless, of course, you coun't missed focus).

What I'm trying to say is that a great pic with FF would have also been great with mFT, and a mediocre pic with mFT would not have been great if taken with FF.

 

[DonSantos]

I've had these cameras in the past and in that order

canon

40d

50d

5d

fuji x100

gf1

gx1




I have to say my last years photos with gf1/gx1 exceed my photos of my canons. It may be attributed to portability or stealthiness. Or maybe having my camera out with me more often. Also maybe better focus or my increased skill and experience with photography. I really didn't feel any IQ different from when I moved from the 5d to the micro 4/3rds

 

[Dylthedog]

Firstly thanks for the interesting thread, both to the OP and contributors.

On my FF/MFT journey I found that when I got my E-P1 I used it so much I almost considered dumping my 5D but ended up getting a 5D2 and suddenly my PEN use dropped dramatically and I would put up with the weight/size because I knew the output would be so much better from the Canon, mostly due to the noise of the original PEN with anything over ISO400.

What made me use the PEN more again was getting a couple of fast primes (20 & 45mm) and dumping the kit And that's when I resolved myself to redeveloping both systems; my wife getting a G2 also helped.

The funny thing is that on a recent trip to Venice my wife took her G2 and I my 5D3 and my two favourite shots I took with the G2

It really was down to the opportunity in my case.

Interestingly it's the first time I've posted shots to my Smugmug gallery from our camera phones too.

I just got my E-PL5 yesterday and I have big hopes for that; I've been waiting for the PEN sensor upgrade for quite a while!

 

[DigitalDick]

Just as medium format was a step too far in my youth, so FF is a step too far in my antiquity.

You just got my vote for Quote of the Day.

****

 

[robonrome]

Great Bustard wrote:

What I'm trying to say is that a great pic with FF would have also been great with mFT, and a mediocre pic with mFT would not have been great if taken with FF.

Agreed

 

[robonrome]

Dylthedog wrote:

Firstly thanks for the interesting thread, both to the OP and contributors.

On my FF/MFT journey I found that when I got my E-P1 I used it so much I almost considered dumping my 5D but ended up getting a 5D2 and suddenly my PEN use dropped dramatically and I would put up with the weight/size because I knew the output would be so much better from the Canon, mostly due to the noise of the original PEN with anything over ISO400.

What made me use the PEN more again was getting a couple of fast primes (20 & 45mm) and dumping the kit And that's when I resolved myself to redeveloping both systems; my wife getting a G2 also helped.

The funny thing is that on a recent trip to Venice my wife took her G2 and I my 5D3 and my two favourite shots I took with the G2

It really was down to the opportunity in my case.

Interestingly it's the first time I've posted shots to my Smugmug gallery from our camera phones too.

I just got my E-PL5 yesterday and I have big hopes for that; I've been waiting for the PEN sensor upgrade for quite a while!

A good example of the best camera being the one you have with you.

The higher ISO noise advantage you mention is certainly part of full frame's appeal. I'll be interested to hear how it goes with the E-PL5 featuring the OMD sensor which I understand closes the gap quite a bit (to FF) on mid to higher ISO performance