M43 High ISO

[Manoli]

My eyes, the final results, and my client's expectations guide my evaluation.

In which case best not to finish your post by citing 'the laws of physics' as your point of reference!

In the field, Fuji IQ beats Olympus at high ISO. It is what it is.

It is indeed 'what it is', not what you think it is.  AlterEgo just explained it in his post above - it's not 'in the field' but rather 'in the raw converter'. You want to make a valid comparison ? - then you need to follow both BJL and AlterEgo's advice to come to a valid conclusion.  Yours is a misguided premise.

[BJL]

. . . My eyes, the final results, and my client's expectations guide my evaluation.

In the field, Fuji IQ beats Olympus at high ISO.

Your eyes and your clients' will likely see blurring due to OOF effects, subject motion and camera motion, and if your clients' expectations require limiting those sources of blurring by suitable choice of aperture and shutter speed, then "in the field" the Fujifilm [Fuji is a company that makes bikes, not cameras!] camera will probably need to use a higher ISO speed.  So why do you insist on comparisons at equally high ISO speed, meaning with less DOF and/or a longer exposure time with the larger format?  Is all your work shot wide-open on fast lenses?

Sometimes it seems that the digital transition has reduced photographic IQ discussions to looking at signal noise an pixel counts!

[AlterEgo]

See, here's the thing. I don't use a "calculator" to evaluate my images, and neither do my clients. My eyes, the final results, and my client's expectations guide my evaluation.

In the field, Fuji IQ beats Olympus at high ISO. It is what it is. No need to be rude about it.

when somebody comes and says 2x2=5 what do you expect :-)...  if you want to talk about your eyes then there are other specialists out there.

[Robert Falconer]

In which case best not to finish your post by citing 'the laws of physics' as your point of reference!

It is indeed 'what it is', not what you think it is.  AlterEgo just explained it in his post above - it's not 'in the field' but rather 'in the raw converter'. You want to make a valid comparison ? - then you need to follow both BJL and AlterEgo's advice to come to a valid conclusion.  Yours is a misguided premise.

Your eyes and your clients' will likely see blurring due to OOF effects, subject motion and camera motion, and if your clients' expectations require limiting those sources of blurring by suitable choice of aperture and shutter speed, then "in the field" the Fujifilm [Fuji is a company that makes bikes, not cameras!] camera will probably need to use a higher ISO speed.  So why do you insist on comparisons at equally high ISO speed, meaning with less DOF and/or a longer exposure time with the larger format?  Is all your work shot wide-open on fast lenses?

Sometimes it seems that the digital transition has reduced photographic IQ discussions to looking at signal noise an pixel counts!

when somebody comes and says 2x2=5 what do you expect :-)...  if you want to talk about your eyes then there are other specialists out there.

The smaller m43 sensor offers a narrower IQ shooting envelope than APS-C X-Trans. Similarly, APS-C falls short of equivalent generation full frame sensors using the same measurement metrics. I shoot extensively with all three formats, for clients, and see it time and time again. I know which tool to choose for any given situation … and which one simply won't cut the mustard in another.

Let's leave IBIS and other electronic felgercarb out of the discussion, since that's only useful in certain specific shooting situations, and a discussion of a different nature. I'm talking strictly about sensor performance.

- Fine detail disintegrates faster on the E-M1 as ISOs climb than it does with the X-T1. This has been demonstrated repeatedly in real world shooting scenarios.

- The E-M1 produces more noise at ALL ISOs than the X-T1. Again, there are countless examples of this out there if you want to search for them.

Frankly, it's obvious, and I'm not even sure why it's a debate. I guess it's why I typically avoid wading into this kind of fora.

Have a nice day. 

[BJL]

. . .
- The E-M1 produces more noise at ALL ISOs than the X-T1. . . .

Frankly, it's obvious, and I'm not even sure why it's a debate. I guess it's why I typically avoid wading into this kind of fora.

No one is disputing your claim about the facts about there being some difference in noise levels in comparisons at equally high ISO speed; only the practical relevance of those comparisons and the often falseness of the assumption that different formats will be used at equally high ISO speed in a given low-light situation.

You seem to be simply ignoring the actual facts and arguments that have been mentioned in multiple replies about high ISO speed comparisons, and continue to compare noise levels at equal ISO speed with no comment on the differences in DOF etc.  So I agree that there's no point in debating if you simply ignore what other people are saying.

Not that I am denying that there are different trade-offs that sometimes favor a larger format over a smaller one (otherwise I would change to an even smaller format system like Niko or Samsung's 1" or Pentax's 1/1.7"!); it is just that the "equal ISO speed and thus less DOF and/or more motion blur" comparison that you keep making is almost irrelevant to practical comparisons.

[Robert Falconer]

…the "equal ISO speed and thus less DOF and/or more motion blur" comparison that you keep making…

You must have me confused with another poster. I never spoke anywhere in this thread about DOF or motion blur, never mind making repeated comments about it.

You like m43, I get it. I shoot with the E-M1 as well, and it's a great camera, brilliantly designed (save the menu system) with a terrific feature set. In fact, IMO I'd say it's one of the best designed cameras ever when it comes to handling and ergonomics.

But when the light gets low and/or dodgy, and subjects may be moving, if I'm using mirrorless I reach for the Fujifilm, because I know from repeated experience it's going to give me more useable files.

Anyway, we've back-and-forthed about this enough. Moving on...

[BJL]

You must have me confused with another poster. I never spoke anywhere in this thread about DOF or motion blur, never mind making repeated comments about it.

No you never mentioned them ... but as I pointed out in an earlier reply to you, those changes are implied when you compare using the same high ISO speed to photograph the same composition (same FOV) with different formats.  That is because the longer (actual, not equivalent!) focal length used in the larger format gives you either less DOF (if you use the same f-stop), or requires a longer exposure time and therefore gives more motion blur (if you use the higher f-stop needed to get the same DOF with the larger format/longer focal length combination, while stating at the same ISO speed).