Bhupinder2002
Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Bloody hell ..I cant add pics from my gallery
^ maybe my eye isn't trained enough, but I don't see the tonal differences, just that the first image clearly has more in focus than the second and therefore appears sharper overall.
look at the highlights and shadows, around the skin details, don't pay attention to the focus that doesn't matter. Tell me what you see then.
Bloody hell ..I cant add pics from my gallery
There is definitely more contrast and clearly defined shadows in the first picture but I'm sure the sunglasses obscuring the eyes in No 2 don't help the comparison and were these pictures taken at the same time in the same light?
I'm sure I'm going to regret diving into this thread, but anway...
To me FF look consists of a handful of things that larger sensor cameras tend to be very good at, when all other things are equal (i.e. comparing similar generation sensor tech). None of this is to say m4/3 isn't capable, or that you have to shoot FF or anything like that. However if you hang out in the performance margins you will see a definite difference between formats.
Here's some examples all from this past weekend.
1) Shallow DoF, especially with a wide angle lens. I find this gives a unique subject isolation look when you can be both wide angle & up close with shallow DoF versus a longer lens like the 75mm f/1.8 on m4/3. And of course with a long fast lens like the 70-200mm f/2.8 you can get a really strong subject isolation effect that's sort of a signature look for FF.
Ex: 28mm f/1.8 shot wide open
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
NY/NJ/MI/IL/CT Multi-state Meet by jloden, on Flickr
2) Clean(er) high ISO - yes, even comparing against the EM-5, GH3 etc.
Ex: ISO 3200
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
NY/NJ/MI/IL/CT Multi-state Meet by jloden, on Flickr
Ex: ISO 12,800 (note: this one was an accidental shot and I would have just deleted it but I was impressed at the clarity given the ISO setting)
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
NY/NJ/MI/IL/CT Multi-state Meet by jloden, on Flickr
3) Lots of clarity and resolution. I believe this is a function of actual resolution as well as photosite size as someone mentioned in an earlier comment. Whatever it is, it's definitely visibly different.
Ex: this is a *very* heavily cropped shot, and at ISO 2800 to boot:
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
NY/NJ/MI/IL/CT Multi-state Meet by jloden, on Flickr
Ex: another at ISO 2800, zoom to the full size and check out the detail on the tent fabric and the insect(s). And that's with a simple wide angle 28mm lens.
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
NY/NJ/MI/IL/CT Multi-state Meet by jloden, on Flickr
jloden said:1) Shallow DoF, especially with a wide angle lens. I find this gives a unique subject isolation look when you can be both wide angle & up close with shallow DoF versus a longer lens like the 75mm f/1.8 on m4/3. And of course with a long fast lens like the 70-200mm f/2.8 you can get a really strong subject isolation effect that's sort of a signature look for FF.
jloden said:Ex: ISO 12,800 (note: this one was an accidental shot and I would have just deleted it but I was impressed at the clarity given the ISO setting)
I'm sure I'm going to regret diving into this thread, but anway...
To me FF look consists of a handful of things that larger sensor cameras tend to be very good at, when all other things are equal (i.e. comparing similar generation sensor tech). None of this is to say m4/3 isn't capable, or that you have to shoot FF or anything like that. However if you hang out in the performance margins you will see a definite difference between formats.
Here's some examples all from this past weekend.
No magic here, I can do some fun stuff with an adapted Sigma 10-20 but the bokeh is incredibly harsh. Just use a fast m4/3 prime and you're gonna be set for wide angle+isolation.
http://imageshack.us/a/img41/8079/0ira.jpg
Ah wait, this brings that whole "equivalence" word (In proper usage) to the equation. (Before anyone starts misusing the word: Go say this to the face of a medium format camera with a 50mm f/1.7 mounted on it. Extra points of ignorant, misinformed stupid bravery if done as an owner of a FF body with a slow (kit or consumer) lens)
Oh yeah, now imagine what happens if you had an APS-C 17-55mm and 55-140mm f/2 lens and used a telecompressor/"boosting" element to make it a m4/3 lens? Thats right, it becomes a 12-40mm and 40-100mm f/1.4. Do those ranges sound vaguely familiar? If they don't, go stare at the 12-35 f/2.8 and 12-40 f/2.8. But why do those lack the insane DoF? Because they're f/2.8s on m4/3 and to get similiar DoF of the FF lens, you'd need those superfast f/1.4 zooms.
Hint: The Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 which is an APS-C lens is f/1.8 because of the optical design. Go think about the numbers from above, their FF values would be around: 27-52mm (Aggressively compressed 24-70mm). The aperture? Round f/1.8 to f/2 and your FF DoF would be f/2.8
(We should be asking for Panasonic and Olympus to release, massive FF sized f/1.4 pro zoom lenses if you guys want that FF level of DoF. You will get exactly a FF lens in every single way, weight to volume, that has the image circle compressed down to m4/3 sizes. It will give you exactly what you wanted on a FF camera.)
I am going to post a graphic later illustrating this.
http://imageshack.us/a/img7/576/kmsk.jpg
Really not feeling the FF magic here at ISO 25600.
I think there are some seriously mistaken perceptions between "properly composed, technically correct images" versus "a random assortment of variable quality images produced on non FF sensors." Just like the same could be said of the "Leica look" in which a small collection of yet again, "well composed, technically correct" types of images are used in reference to a variable quality set of images.
And yes, I will not hold back blows about proper composition and technical quality of an image. A web resolution, black and white tractor with added grain and vignetting with a pseudowannabe dutch angle that is closer to a skewed, unleveled shot does not make art, nor does it become "ironic art" especially when it is slightly misfocused placing the shooter's friend slightly out of the focus plane. This does not become any better no matter what format the shooter decides to use, nor does the presentation medium even matter, print, smartphone or monitor.
I'll put this bluntly: Everyone can look over the equipment all they want and talk about photography using photographer terms that have no quantifiable properties but it will never end up justifying those terms.
I can go crop a FF image down to a m4/3 sized FoV and enlarge that using very aggressive techniques and present it at a 1:1 with the original EXIF information and post it on another forum. Nobody there would even know. Likewise I can go upscale a m4/3 shot to 24mp and yet again post on another forum and nobody would really know with faked EXIF information, which brings me to my next point:
There are working professionals that use a D2H or D2Hs for their work still to today. They make massive, poster sized prints (The fullframe-aryan-master-race-only crowd of today would argue this is physically impossible by the laws governing the very universe, physics and photography.) using only an ancient, 4MP sensor in dimly lit conditions. They are paid by their clients for their work. Their clients aren't paying them to use some hypothetical 100MP sensor in some mirrorless cam; unless their clients are insane neurotic number obsessed gearheads that have no skill or talent and rely on the photographer for the actual shot while handing them the gear via blank checks.
And these people have to fake their EXIF information for those shots when sending images to their clients for review. Funny how this works...
I'm sure I'm going to regret diving into this thread, but anway...
To me FF look consists of a handful of things that larger sensor cameras tend to be very good at, when all other things are equal (i.e. comparing similar generation sensor tech). None of this is to say m4/3 isn't capable, or that you have to shoot FF or anything like that. However if you hang out in the performance margins you will see a definite difference between formats.
Here's some examples all from this past weekend.
1) Shallow DoF, especially with a wide angle lens. I find this gives a unique subject isolation look when you can be both wide angle & up close with shallow DoF versus a longer lens like the 75mm f/1.8 on m4/3. And of course with a long fast lens like the 70-200mm f/2.8 you can get a really strong subject isolation effect that's sort of a signature look for FF.
Ex: 28mm f/1.8 shot wide open
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
NY/NJ/MI/IL/CT Multi-state Meet by jloden, on Flickr
2) Clean(er) high ISO - yes, even comparing against the EM-5, GH3 etc.
Ex: ISO 3200
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
NY/NJ/MI/IL/CT Multi-state Meet by jloden, on Flickr
Ex: ISO 12,800 (note: this one was an accidental shot and I would have just deleted it but I was impressed at the clarity given the ISO setting)
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
NY/NJ/MI/IL/CT Multi-state Meet by jloden, on Flickr
3) Lots of clarity and resolution. I believe this is a function of actual resolution as well as photosite size as someone mentioned in an earlier comment. Whatever it is, it's definitely visibly different.
Ex: this is a *very* heavily cropped shot, and at ISO 2800 to boot:
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
NY/NJ/MI/IL/CT Multi-state Meet by jloden, on Flickr
Ex: another at ISO 2800, zoom to the full size and check out the detail on the tent fabric and the insect(s). And that's with a simple wide angle 28mm lens.
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
NY/NJ/MI/IL/CT Multi-state Meet by jloden, on Flickr
I bought a copy of 'the Great Life Photographers' (That's Life magazine, for younger folk) and was amazed at how many of the photographs--striking, powerful, engaging--were grainy and/or out of focus!! Just having top gear won't give you great pictures, it may not even be one of the bigger parts of the equation (although it can sure help!!).These were some great examples, but I think I see the term "performance margins" differently. If I can find a good way to word this...you've demonstrated that this type of camera is excellent for when you've left the racetrack and are trying to get out of the gravel, but what I rarely see when these types of this-vs-that topics come up is examples that attempt to show how one format is a second per lap faster on the racetrack.
Don't get me wrong; I have searched for and found images from larger format cameras taken in more ideal conditions that appear to be technically better than I might have expected from an APS-C or Micro 4/3 camera but without having been there, pressed the shutter, and processed the image myself I can't be confident that other factors weren't also at play. I also don't have a requirement for a camera with greater margins that allows me to be lazy in the field with the expectation that I can fix it up later on the computer without anyone ever knowing.
Even allowing for there being a measurable technical difference between formats based purely on sensor size, one other interesting although not particularly surprising thing that I have found with the images that I have chosen to have printed out larger and displayed is that none of them are what I would consider to be images that have the very best IQ out of everything I have ever taken. In fact more than a few of them come from a 2005 model 8MP Canon 350D. I'm all for more megapixels, more dynamic range, less noise, potential for less depth-of-field, more clarity, etc, etc, but I feel that a point was reached some time ago where these matter less now than they ever did, compared to simply finding a camera that you like and using it in the right place and the right time with the right settings.
Well I read it, but I think I might need to read it again.
Ah yes, but what format is Life Magazine in? If it's got 150% the page are of National Geographic, using reading glasses at +2 diopter, then it's definitely not equivalent!
You lost me here.
I think it was a point in jest about one magazine being a superior "format" to the other.
If this needs to be more clear than this immediate post then I will take another loan out for my faith in humanity:
The so called "full frame look" is the perception of photographers staring into a limited pool of people who take competent shots on a full frame camera compared to the unlimited pool of general photography.
The same could be said of the Leica look.
Sometimes these words lose complete meaning and photographers use it as a flowery compliment word that has little in value besides "it looks good / sharp / nice DoF isolation / colors / tones / etc."
My post additionally contained information about why people may perceive there to be a FF look due to FF lenses having much larger apertures and how that has influence on the DoF.
Unfortunately for me, I know that as short, direct and forcibly oversimplified this post becomes, some people will actively refuse to find the actual communication in it. So I will be making another subprime loan for my faith in humanity and especially photographers.
Sorry but I don't agree with this at all. Anyone who has used a Leica for a significant amount of time knows there.
flash said:Certainly they're even more difficult to see on a computer screen compared to a print.
flash said:Certainly modern post processing and VSCO all but obliterate the character of almost any system.
flash said:But I can say for certain that none of the photographers I know who have medium format backs are trading them for a D800, even the landscape guys, where you'd think the additional portability and DOF advantages of the small 35mm format would be in their favour.
flash said:When I shot Canon I had both 135 and 1.6x sensors. A 135L on my 50D didn't look like a 200L on a 1Ds2.