Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6   Go Down

Author Topic: comparining micro four thirds to full frame  (Read 5253 times)

opgr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1805
Re: comparining micro four thirds to full frame
« Reply #20 on: February 13, 2018, 03:48:58 AM »

Surprisingly (or not so much if one understands the physics and statistiscs) a mobile phone can be more capable of producing clean high DOF hanheld images in low light conditions than a FF camera. For instance night or poorly lit indoor scenes.

But your comparison seems to suggest that f/1.7 on the Samsung is comparable to f/14 on FF. That seems a bit stark for the purposes mentioned, no? It is not surprising at all that certain high iso on any larger format leads to more noise than a phone at base iso. But for more-or-less equivalent DoF, especially considering the theoretical example, the lowest possible f number should be chosen instead. The lowest equivalent on FF would be something like 5.6, wouldn't it?
Logged
Regards,
Oscar

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9701
Re: comparining micro four thirds to full frame
« Reply #21 on: February 13, 2018, 08:30:48 AM »

Smaller sensors do not have an advantage unless the quality of the pixels, in relation to their size, is better than the larger pixels.

In other words, if the pixel is half the size and half the quality, there is no advantage. If the pixel is half the size but 2/3rds of the quality of the pixel which is double the size, then one can expect an improvement.

In Guillermo's example of the Samsung S7 versus the Sony A7 II, the Sony image looks far better to me.
Logged

PeterAit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2722
    • Peter Aitken Photographs
Re: comparining micro four thirds to full frame
« Reply #22 on: February 13, 2018, 09:20:47 AM »

Another consideration is that the camera you have with you is always better than the camera you left home because it's too bulky and heavy. With my E-M1 and two zoom lenses I have a 24-600mm equiv range in a compact, lightweight kit. Can you imagine trying to get the same capabilities with FF gear?

Also worthy of thought are the newer "bridge" cameras with a 1" sensor, specifically the Sony RX10. There have been enormous strides in lens and sensor design and I am amazed at the image quality.
Logged
Peter
"Photographic technique should always be a means to an end and never the end itself."

DP

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 125
Re: comparining micro four thirds to full frame
« Reply #23 on: February 13, 2018, 09:28:30 AM »

Another consideration is that the camera you have with you is always better than the camera you left home because it's too bulky and heavy. With my E-M1 and two zoom lenses I have a 24-600mm equiv range in a compact, lightweight kit. Can you imagine trying to get the same capabilities with FF gear?

why somebody must imagine capabilities that you are looking for ? I always use one dSLM camera and one prime (in 35mm ... 85mm range) - so "FF" size is not an issue... now having said that E-M1 line has a very good body, I have nothing against having Sony FF sensor in Olympus E-M1 style body ...

Logged

Kirk_C

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 40
Re: comparining micro four thirds to full frame
« Reply #24 on: February 13, 2018, 01:03:03 PM »

This discussion brings an older Zack Arias rant to mind.
Logged

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1710
    • Pieter Kers
Re: comparining micro four thirds to full frame
« Reply #25 on: February 14, 2018, 10:36:57 AM »

Another consideration is that the camera you have with you is always better than the camera you left home because it's too bulky and heavy. With my E-M1 and two zoom lenses I have a 24-600mm equiv range in a compact, lightweight kit. Can you imagine trying to get the same capabilities with FF gear?

Also worthy of thought are the newer "bridge" cameras with a 1" sensor, specifically the Sony RX10. There have been enormous strides in lens and sensor design and I am amazed at the image quality.
yes there are a lot of good reasons to pick a camera that have nothing to do with choosing a sensor size.
FF has grown onto me and serves me well for what i do.
And FF includes all smaller sizes sensors...

Logged
Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5891
Re: comparing micro four thirds to full frame
« Reply #26 on: February 15, 2018, 11:47:08 AM »

We seem to be getting evidence and arguments for the idea that larger format cameras have their clearest advantage when used on a tripod at low exposure index (so-called "ISO") and longer exposure times than would be used with a smaller format. This might be surprising given all the digital-era emphasis on the better high-speed capabilities of larger formats, but is totally in accord with the pattern of use cases for larger film formats.

Of course, there is another advantage of a larger format: when very shallow DOF the bigger, heavier lenses are either tolerable for the sake of handling low-light and moving subjects, or when low DOF is desired for things like the artistic effect of strong background blurring. But this seems a bit less important to the main interests of the Luminous Landscape audience.

P. S. Ray, as discussed many times over the years here at LuLa, there are inherent technical reasons backed by experimental data as to why one is likely to get likely to get less noise in a smaller format at a given EI (e.g ISO 200 in 4/3" format) than with a larger sensor at the higher EI used to get equal DOF and exposure time in a larger format (e.g. ISO 800 in 35mm format).  In a nutshell: because in this particular scenario, there will be about the same photon count and amount of photon shot noise, but the larger sensor (and longer, wider signal paths and larger components in the analog signal processing path) will generate more electrical noise.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9701
Re: comparing micro four thirds to full frame
« Reply #27 on: February 15, 2018, 08:19:56 PM »


P. S. Ray, as discussed many times over the years here at LuLa, there are inherent technical reasons backed by experimental data as to why one is likely to get likely to get less noise in a smaller format at a given EI (e.g ISO 200 in 4/3" format) than with a larger sensor at the higher EI used to get equal DOF and exposure time in a larger format (e.g. ISO 800 in 35mm format).  In a nutshell: because in this particular scenario, there will be about the same photon count and amount of photon shot noise, but the larger sensor (and longer, wider signal paths and larger components in the analog signal processing path) will generate more electrical noise.

BJL,
Of course, there are usually many technical differences between all brands and sizes of cameras. Nobody buys a camera based on the consideration of just one factor, such as format size. (At least, I don't).
There is usually a huge range of technical and cost advantages, and disadvantages to consider, in relation to one's purpose, and usual photographic method and style.

For some folks, weight is a major consideration, and most people would be willing to sacrifice to some degree the potential quality and resolution of an image for the sake of the convenience of low weight. The question then becomes a matter of degree. 'How much is the weight saving, and how much is the image-quality loss?' A significant weight-saving with the consequences of an insignificant or less significant loss of image quality, would probably appeal to most people, provided there was no major increase in price.

However, as you know, I'm a great fan of the scientific method. When considering the effects of just one factor, such as format size, one needs to keep all other factors the same, if possible, otherwise the effects of that one factor become confused with the other factors.

So, to get back to my main point, if the pixel size and quality is the same for both formats, after all the in-camera processing of the signal is complete, as it is comparing the Nikon D7000 with the Nikon D800, (according to DXOMark) then the larger format has all the advantages and no disadvantages.

The larger format then becomes 'effectively' cheaper, lighter, and, over all, produces better image quality (and no less than equal image quality, at a minimum, in certain circumstances when the larger format is cropped to the same size as the smaller format).

Now, if you escape from the scientific method, and include all sorts of other factors not directly related to format size, and exclude certain disadvantages of the smaller format in terms of the general lack of flexibility of the focal lengths of whatever lenses are used, then you might as well stick with your iPhone camera.  ;)

To repeat, a D7000 with 50mm/F1.4 prime, might be lighter and cheaper than a D800 with the same 50mm prime but is not capable of capturing the same subject matter from the same position. If you don't have the time to move further back, or as is often the case, don't have the physical possibility of moving back, then you've lost the shot.

To give the smaller format that capability, you'd need a very high quality, and very expensive 33-50mm/F1.4 zoom. At 50mm, the quality of the images from both cameras would be the same (provided the zoom lens was of equal quality to the 50mm prime). However, at 33 mm on the D7000 the image quality would be worse (in terms of resolution and noise), although the angle of view would be the same as that from the 50mm prime on the D800. But at least you would not have missed the shot.

The extra weight and cost of a 33-50mm/F1.4 zoom lens would make the D7000 at least as expensive and at least as heavy as the D800 with 50mm prime. Okay?
Logged

HSakols

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 875
    • Hugh Sakols Photography
Re: comparining micro four thirds to full frame
« Reply #28 on: February 16, 2018, 11:51:18 AM »

Ray,
 
I know I'm beating a dead horse and I see what you're saying but...  Take an Olympus 25 1.2 lens and compare it to your Nikon 50 1.4.  You won't see any difference other than probably a sharper image with the Olympus.  Print these two below 16x20 and there is no difference other than weight. 

I will say that I do prefer the Nikon for silky smooth control and I like a large view finder. For people like myself it is probably best to have both.
Logged

GuyPhoto

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2
Re: comparining micro four thirds to full frame
« Reply #29 on: February 16, 2018, 12:36:15 PM »

Along the same lines:
- you cannot get a micro 3/4 camera with an optical viewfinder
- you cannot get a micro 3/4 camera with a profoto air remote
- you cannot get a micro 3/4 camera with the equivalent of a 200mm f2.0 or 105 f1.4 in terms of subject isolation (more DoF isn't always the prefered rendering)


True, you cannot get a micro 4/3 camera with an optical viewfinder, but you are wrong on the Profoto Air Remote (one has been available for some time).

As far as subject isolation, the lens and sensor are not the only variables. By moving closer to the subject and thereby compressing DOF and altering the ratio between subject and background, I can get reasonable isolation with my M4/3 lens set, even razor thin. A few minutes with a DOF calculator and years in the studio taught me that. Someone did a wonderful blog piece illustrating that with various camera systems, and I am always annoyed I lost the link.  Of course, sometimes it is not feasible or comfortable to get close, but every lens and camera combo limits your positioning to some degree. Those $2K -$6K lenses you cite DO make the isolation easier, but at a cost, which in some circumstances can be justified. Photography comes down to problem solving, and there are many ways to solve a problem depending on your budget and how much gear you want to carry.
Logged

petermfiore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1373
    • Peter Fiore Fine Art
Re: comparining micro four thirds to full frame
« Reply #30 on: February 16, 2018, 02:46:56 PM »


Photography comes down to problem solving, and there are many ways to solve a problem depending on your budget and how much gear you want to carry.

Absolutely...!00%

Peter

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9701
Re: comparining micro four thirds to full frame
« Reply #31 on: February 16, 2018, 06:48:19 PM »

Ray,
 
I know I'm beating a dead horse and I see what you're saying but...  Take an Olympus 25 1.2 lens and compare it to your Nikon 50 1.4.  You won't see any difference other than probably a sharper image with the Olympus.  Print these two below 16x20 and there is no difference other than weight. 

I will say that I do prefer the Nikon for silky smooth control and I like a large view finder. For people like myself it is probably best to have both.

Your above statement is very confusing, Hugh. Are you talking about the 16mp Olympus E-M5 with 25mm lens, compared with the 36mp Nikon D800 with 50mm lens?

The following DXOMark link shows there would be a huge, or at least a significant difference in all the metrics they address, such as SNR, DR, Tonal Range and Color Sensitivity.

At base ISO, the D800 shot would have around 5.7db better SNR (3dB is in the noticeable range). DR is almost 2 stops better, at its lower base ISO, or at least 1.5 stops better at the same actual ISO sensitivity.

Comparing the quality of the individual pixels, the Nikon D800 pixel still has around around 1.3 stops better DR at low ISO's, but approximately the same DR at very high ISO's. The SNR of the Nikon pixel is around 2dB better across the entire ISO range. There is no measurement on the DXO graphs which shows the EM5 pixel is better in any way at any ISO.

So what's the comparison if you crop the images from both cameras to get an effective 100 mm lens from the attached 50 mm lens on the Nikon and the 25mm lens on the Olympus?

Wouldn't you be comparing something like 4mp from the Olympus with 9mp from the Nikon? Are you claiming there would be no significant difference in image quality on, say, an A2 or A3 print?

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Olympus-OM-D-E-M5-Mark-II-versus-Nikon-D800___1006_792


Logged

HSakols

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 875
    • Hugh Sakols Photography
Re: comparining micro four thirds to full frame
« Reply #32 on: February 16, 2018, 08:03:01 PM »

Quote
Wouldn't you be comparing something like 4mp from the Olympus with 9mp from the Nikon? Are you claiming there would be no significant difference in image quality on, say, an A2 or A3 print?

Exactly
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9701
Re: comparining micro four thirds to full frame
« Reply #33 on: February 16, 2018, 09:08:30 PM »

Exactly

You specialize in fuzzy abstracts, do you?  ;D
Logged

hogloff

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 390
Re: comparining micro four thirds to full frame
« Reply #34 on: February 17, 2018, 11:31:14 AM »

Ray,
 
I know I'm beating a dead horse and I see what you're saying but...  Take an Olympus 25 1.2 lens and compare it to your Nikon 50 1.4.  You won't see any difference other than probably a sharper image with the Olympus.  Print these two below 16x20 and there is no difference other than weight. 

I will say that I do prefer the Nikon for silky smooth control and I like a large view finder. For people like myself it is probably best to have both.

You are only looking at resolutions here. What about dynamic range which is hugely important in many landscape images. What about tonal gradation which is very important in many landscapes. You need to take the full package into account and I'm sorry, but I just do not agree with your view.
Logged

Guillermo Luijk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1667
    • http://www.guillermoluijk.com
Re: comparining micro four thirds to full frame
« Reply #35 on: February 17, 2018, 12:11:33 PM »

What about tonal gradation which is very important in many landscapes.

Tonal gradation is a myth. A mobile phone can provide the same quality regarding tonal gradation as a MF sensor because no matter the sensor size, there are many more tone levels in any RAW file than our eyes can catch. In addition to that, noise dithers it all, just look at the histogram of this noisy gradation:



Another story is colour accuracy and colour gamut, but that is not gradation. BTW the 'Tonal range' measurement in DxOMark is just another benchmark based on noise, so good tonal range in DxOMark is just 'low noise' sensor.

I have been looking for a tonal gradation comparison between cameras for years. It simply doesn't exist, just users talking about 'tonal gradation'.

Regards
Logged
[url=http://www.guillermoluijk.com/index

hogloff

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 390
Re: comparining micro four thirds to full frame
« Reply #36 on: February 17, 2018, 02:37:56 PM »

Tonal gradation is a myth. A mobile phone can provide the same quality regarding tonal gradation as a MF sensor because no matter the sensor size, there are many more tone levels in any RAW file than our eyes can catch. In addition to that, noise dithers it all, just look at the histogram of this noisy gradation:



Another story is colour accuracy and colour gamut, but that is not gradation. BTW the 'Tonal range' measurement in DxOMark is just another benchmark based on noise, so good tonal range in DxOMark is just 'low noise' sensor.

I have been looking for a tonal gradation comparison between cameras for years. It simply doesn't exist, just users talking about 'tonal gradation'.

Regards

Well it really doesnít matter what causes the tonal gradition differences, but I see much smoother tonal variations with my A7R images than my 7d images. Really donít care if itís caused by a difference in noise, the end result is what counts and I do get better tonal ranges with the A7R images.
Logged

Guillermo Luijk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1667
    • http://www.guillermoluijk.com
Re: comparining micro four thirds to full frame
« Reply #37 on: February 17, 2018, 03:31:16 PM »

I see much smoother tonal variations with my A7R images than my 7d images.

I would love to see those smoother tonal variations A7R vs 7D. Just an example will suffice. I assume you shot the same scenes with both cameras and developed the RAW files in an indentical way.

Regards
Logged
[url=http://www.guillermoluijk.com/index

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9701
Re: comparining micro four thirds to full frame
« Reply #38 on: February 17, 2018, 08:11:56 PM »

Quote
Quote from: HSakols on February 16, 2018, 11:51:18 AM
Ray,

I know I'm beating a dead horse and I see what you're saying but... Take an Olympus 25 1.2 lens and compare it to your Nikon 50 1.4. You won't see any difference other than probably a sharper image with the Olympus. Print these two below 16x20 and there is no difference other than weight.

I will say that I do prefer the Nikon for silky smooth control and I like a large view finder. For people like myself it is probably best to have both.


You are only looking at resolutions here. What about dynamic range which is hugely important in many landscape images. What about tonal gradation which is very important in many landscapes. You need to take the full package into account and I'm sorry, but I just do not agree with your view.

I don't think Hugh is specifically addressing resolution, but is addressing the other factors that obscure the perception of resolution, such as print size, viewing distance, and lens quality.

The Nikon D800 pixel is approximately the same size as the Olympus EM5 pixel, but is slightly better quality over all, and noticeably better quality with regard to DR at base ISO.

There's no way a 16mp Olympus 4/3rds format will match the resolution of a 36mp Nikon D800, even if the Olympus 25mm/F1.2 is a better lens than the standard Nikkor 50mm, which it might be when heavily cropping the Nikon image.

Nevertheless, at a 100mm focal length equivalent for both cameras, we are comparing Olympus 4mp with Nikon 9mp. Assuming the scene being photographed contains fine detail and a wide brightness range, one would expect the 9mp Nikon image to show more detail and better DR on an A2 size print, when viewed close up.
Logged

scooby70

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 423
Re: comparining micro four thirds to full frame
« Reply #39 on: February 18, 2018, 05:14:31 AM »

Once again I haven't been super productive with my photography so instead of taking pictures, I'm over analyzing gear.  Last week I compared two images of the same subject taken with my Olympus EM5 and Nikon D800.  I was surprised to find out how subtle the differences are between the two files.  Yes, if I were making prints over 30 inches long, I'd get a real advantage of the full frame, but the difference in dynamic range is surprisingly small!  As someone who never prints over 20 inches long, I wonder if I 'm fooling myself with the full frame advantage.  However, I do see one advantage for me.  Controlling highlights and shadow details is much smoother using the full frame - I guess this is the dynamic range. 

Are any of you shooting full frame and not making huge prints.  Why do you stick with full frame?  It appears to me that for most images the difference is not enough to justify the added cost?

I have a Sony A7 and a couple of Panasonic MFT cameras. I still print sometimes and maybe average a print a week but not often large now.

Years ago when I first bought into MFT with a Panasonic GF1 and then a G1 I did a lot of comparisons with my Canon 5D and 20D and concluded that if I didn't pixel peep or take a magnifying glass to what was already a good sized print there wasn't a lot in it between any of them and other people I roped in didn't seem to know what I was looking for. The 5D had a bit more DR I suppose but surprisingly I could boost the MFT files quite a lot without them felling apart whereas when I boosted the Canon files they showed noise in the shadows pretty quickly so things tended to even out a bit.

These days with my Sony A7 and Panasonic GX7 and GX80 the situation is pretty similar but maybe the A7 opens up a little more of a gap than the 5D did. The A7 has more DR and gives a sharper result and overall better image quality and the files can be processed a lot without falling apart but having said all that mostly no one will notice any shortcomings in the MFT pictures and my MFT pictures are easily better than anything I got from 35mm film. YMMV.

I tend to use the A7 when I want the best quality I can get and when I want to be able to use lovely old manual lenses at their original field of view. I tend to use MFT when I want to be more discrete as I think sometimes even a small Sony A7 can be too attention grabbing. My MFT cameras are also much faster so I use them when I want to be discrete or fast or both.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6   Go Up