Can you tell the difference in Different Sized Sensors?

Joined
Mar 25, 2018
Messages
1,986
Location
The Royal Town of Sutton Coldfield, UK.
Real Name
Richard
I can't tell the difference in output between my EM1 Mk1 or Mk2.

A photographer whose name escapes me David Thorpe (see my post below) was on youtube the other night to say he couldn't tell the difference in output of his MFT G9 or full frame S1 on a 27" retina screen, but could if he printed the results.

I was surprised by that, but perhaps I shouldn't be. People forget that four times the pixels is only twice the resolution - and that is assuming that the lens you're using with the bigger sensor is as good as the one you're using on the smaller one.
 
Last edited:

exakta

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jun 2, 2015
Messages
650
This just reminds me of how much I miss film :roflmao: When I put a roll of Kodachrome into a 35mm camera, the sharpness would be affected by the lens used, but in terms of colors, dynamic range, grain, etc. the results were the same.

With digital, you end up doing the dance between the camera you want to use in terms of features and the camera you want to use because of it's particular sensor.

I want an OM-D with that Hasselblad sensor :drinks::drinks:
 

ralf-11

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jan 16, 2017
Messages
1,434
I don't think HiRes mode can compensate for the large photon wells used in larger format cameras like the Hassy.

AFAIK, the G9 and GH body they used don't differ in sensors, unsure re processing engines.

Both Sony and Samsung have some very advanced sensors about to be released (industrial) but I dunno how to get around the large capture wells in the Hassy.
 

Pluttis

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2016
Messages
876
Location
Sweden
Real Name
Peter
No shocker that you can see a difference between the different cameras/sensor sizes.

Funny the say "made for snaps"...wonder if they ever have seen the prints in Olympus stands on photo shows or big prints from known Olympus/Panasonic photographers.

In practice no one would have complained about the quality of the m43 print, if you cant get big quality prints from a modern m43 you are doing something wrong.

Personally i have several m43 prints that actually looks better than prints from my old FF and APS-C cameras.

Find Nigels print test's and comparsions quite interesting, he is doing quite big prints from his drones and mobile phones.


 

pdk42

One of the "Eh?" team
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
6,875
Location
Leamington Spa, UK
The OP’s original video link is certainly an interesting comparison. And it’s obvious that the Hassy delivered the best output. But ... there really wasn’t that much difference to see even when viewing hugely enlarged on-screen comparisons. I’d really like to see those prints at a sensible viewing distance - I suspect it would be much, much harder to tell them apart like that. And the point really is that “even” the little GH5 got pretty close to that Hassy. Throw in the size, weight, cost, and comparatively fewer features on the MF system and it’s really a hard case to make for using it - unless you’re into extremely specialised use.
 

Richard_M

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
171
Location
Melbourne, Australia
I‘m not sure why some owners tend to defend their purchasing choices, buyers remorse maybe?

I use a variety of formats depending on the genre, and occasionally convenience. I also strip the EXIF data from my images so the body and lens used is not shown.
 

Holoholo55

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
3,149
Location
Honolulu, HI
Real Name
Walter
If Apple can make billboards from iPhone photos, this is not something we should get our knickers twisted about. :)

I didn't view the video because there's no point in getting worked up about it, IMHO. We're here because we made a choice.
 

LilSebastian

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Feb 28, 2017
Messages
677
Location
Pasadena, CA
Real Name
John
The difference between the medium format and micro four thirds is large indeed. So is the price, so my experience is having a photo like this and not having one at all I’m afraid.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Mar 25, 2018
Messages
1,986
Location
The Royal Town of Sutton Coldfield, UK.
Real Name
Richard
Medium format, like full frame, isn't a term which travels well from film to digital.

Film photographers intending to sell 20" wedding pictures and be taken seriously had little choice but to go medium format. There is a very obvious difference between a 20" print from 35mm neg and one from 6x6cm. It's worth remembering that something like a Bronica SQA was not a stellar investment over 35mm, but the print quality gains were significant at standard wall sizes.

That simply does not apply to good quality modern digital equipment. You do not need a massive sensor to knock out sharp 20" prints any more. Go bigger, then the differences start to show, but you are now departing from general purpose cameras, cameras which make MFT and APS-C so appealing. You are also talking very serious money.

Of course, some clients will insist on masses of resolution. Some photographers will market their ability to produce work at very high resolution, so for them medium format is definitely the way to go.

Won't fix your composition though :)


David Thorpe on the G9 and S1.

3.17.

"Go up for a 40 inch print and there will be a difference, but you would have to look into the print to see it.

And if you see someone doing that to one of your prints, the main message is that the picture has failed to capture the attention".
 

Darmok N Jalad

Shaka, when the shutter fell
Joined
Sep 6, 2019
Messages
477
Location
Tanagra (not really)
Real Name
Randy
Medium format, like full frame, isn't a term which travels well from film to digital.

Film photographers intending to sell 20" wedding pictures and be taken seriously had little choice but to go medium format. There is a very obvious difference between a 20" print from 35mm neg and one from 6x6cm. It's worth remembering that something like a Bronica SQA was not a stellar investment over 35mm, but the print quality gains were significant at standard wall sizes.

That simply does not apply to good quality modern digital equipment. You do not need a massive sensor to knock out sharp 20" prints any more. Go bigger, then the differences start to show, but you are now departing from general purpose cameras, cameras which make MFT and APS-C so appealing. You are also talking very serious money.

Of course, some clients will insist on masses of resolution. Some photographers will market their ability to produce work at very high resolution, so for them medium format is definitely the way to go.

Won't fix your composition though :)


David Thorpe on the G9 and S1.

3.17.

"Go up for a 40 inch print and there will be a difference, but you would have to look into the print to see it.

And if you see someone doing that to one of your prints, the main message is that the picture has failed to capture the attention".
That quote makes me think of looking at a Van Gogh. The brush stroke are obvious, but the collection of them is incredible.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom