Can you tell the difference in Different Sized Sensors?

John King

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2020
Messages
624
Location
Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
I would have thought that one of the important aspects of participating in a photography forum and displaying photos is to learn how to achieve competent results by learning from one's fellow photographers.

Removing the EXIF data makes that considerably more difficult.
 

pdk42

One of the "Eh?" team
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
7,022
Location
Leamington Spa, UK
Why is it weird?
When I print an image there is no info in the print, why should posting an image online be any different?
It's not weird, and I've no problem at all with you doing it, but fellow photographers do like to look at the gear used. I think it adds something without taking anything away from the image itself, so why not?
 

Richard_M

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
189
Location
Melbourne, Australia
I would have thought that one of the important aspects of participating in a photography forum and displaying photos is to learn how to achieve competent results by learning from one's fellow photographers.

Removing the EXIF data makes that considerably more difficult.
Well since 90+% of my images are macro of subjects in the bush, I‘m not really sure EXIF data is going to help a lot. Obviously the geotag data would help in giving the locations, but Mother Nature doesn’t always play ball so camera settings will rarely be the same.

I expect my images to be admired for what they are, not what I used to take them, or the computer, or software, or hosting service used.

If someone wants assistance, all they need to do is ask. I go out with fellow photographers on occasion, even using similar camera settings, our images are never close to being the same. Besides composition, which is where most of the variations are, processing also has a big impact.

Anyway, this thread is now way off topic, so I’ll bow out of it and go and take a few 1000 shots in the bush. 🙂
 

L0n3Gr3yW0lf

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2013
Messages
621
Location
UK
Real Name
Ovidiu
For me, it's quite simple: Organs that come in pairs: lungs, kidneys, eyeballs, testicles, organs that you can live with half of them: liver, pancreas, spline. If I sell these then I will get a freaking Hasselblad so I can be a "proper" photographer (professionalism not included, you lose that when you become half dead with a barely functioning body).

In all seriousness, the only disappointment with ALL of this photographic equipment is the (Star Wars Kotor reference incoming) the meat bags that use them: It's never good enough :p
 

piggsy

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jun 2, 2014
Messages
1,552
Location
Brisbane, Australia
I would have thought that one of the important aspects of participating in a photography forum and displaying photos is to learn how to achieve competent results by learning from one's fellow photographers.

Removing the EXIF data makes that considerably more difficult.
Absolutely nothing in the exif is going to teach anyone anything useful and if removing it gets them to stop looking there it's doing them a huge favour. The sooner they start asking what kind of hat to wear or eneloop charger to buy or mosquito repellent to use the better :D
 

John King

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2020
Messages
624
Location
Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
Absolutely nothing in the exif is going to teach anyone anything useful and if removing it gets them to stop looking there it's doing them a huge favour. The sooner they start asking what kind of hat to wear or eneloop charger to buy or mosquito repellent to use the better :D
Geez, I wonder why manufacturers even bothered to include it then ...

For many of us (most?), the basic EXIF data will tell us why a photo worked, or help us to help the photographer when they don't know what went wrong, and maybe how to avoid that in future.

I have not yet looked to see if the EXIF contained in images posted here contain the full EXIF or not. Must download some and examine with EXIFtool.
 
Joined
Nov 21, 2019
Messages
279
Location
Raleigh, NC
I guess if one bases photos on the gear used and not the photographers ability then so be it.
Hmm, I still don't get it. Why do you care what anyone else thinks? I'm sure there is a whimsical quote about "two kinds of people" and caring what others think, but I don't know what it is, so I won't insert here.
I have learned quite a bit from other people's photos, ie. zoom length, aperture and shutter speed, not just composition and I never cared which gear it was taken with. I don't get it, maybe secrets are important to you, but really, it's a photography forum, not a winner take all death match repository of photos so we can get into heaven and prove our devotion to Allah site. So yeah I still think it's weird. But that's ok, I can think it, you can do it. I like your pictures with or without exif data.
 
Last edited:

exakta

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jun 2, 2015
Messages
695
I'm very much a "gear isn't the most important thing" person, but the results from the Hasselblad were pretty amazing, especially the rendering of the red light on the rooftop.
 

ralf-11

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jan 16, 2017
Messages
1,454
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #37
Yes, I'd never thought about "color detail" being better in larger formats.
 

MichailK

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2017
Messages
687
Location
Thessaly, Greece
Yes, I'd never thought about "color detail" being better in larger formats.
Bayer interpolation is messed up by less resolution along worse noise performance and lesser dynamic range - if smaller formats were that good at all uses then MF would have taken the way of the dinosaurs by now as LF did besides those few creative exceptions

the 135 film format was never better than MF/LF but over time it advanced as to be good enough for most uses and easily proved way more practical, hence its domination, given its speed and portability vs MF while LF had already faded out of real use

sounds familiar?
this is because our beloved m43 is the new 35mm !!
 

MichailK

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2017
Messages
687
Location
Thessaly, Greece
Yes, I'd never thought about "color detail" being better in larger formats.
oh, never forget: the chosen RAW developer may affect hugely the color output and even more so if it is optimized for a particular brand’s RAWs - not saying that this is the case here but even in the same program there can be differences
 

11GTCS

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Jan 25, 2020
Messages
151
I saw this some time ago. To me there is a clear difference, MF is obviously better. That said, I’d be happy with any of those pictures, which is why I save myself a small fortune and shoot MFT. If I was shooting portraits all day in a studio and only needed a couple of primes, I’d probably go MF. If all I shot was landscapes, I’d probably use a FF sensor with mega dynamic range since portability wouldn’t be the biggest priority anyway. Since I shoot wildlife, landscape, macro, and people and am not a pro, I pick MFT for the Swiss Army knife-like nature of the camera and the ability to pack very small for deployments and similar space-constrained environments.
 

Latest posts

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