Lack of dynamic range or depth? What do you think?

Discussion in 'Open Discussion' started by Holoholo55, Oct 14, 2015.

  1. Holoholo55

    Holoholo55 Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Aug 13, 2014
    Honolulu, HI
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Jonathan F/2

    Jonathan F/2 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 10, 2011
    Los Angeles, USA
    His arguments are pretty stupid and I have a Nikon FF, M43 and a Sony APS-C kit as well and I still find merit with M43. I would just take his opinion with a grain of salt. Not even worth trying to rebuttal his opinion. The only reason he probably likes the RX100 is to take selfies with his girlfriend. :rolleyes:
    • Like Like x 5
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  3. TNcasual

    TNcasual Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Dec 2, 2014
    Knoxville, TN
    I think the comments on that blog post sums it up pretty well.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. MichaelSewell

    MichaelSewell Mu-43 All-Pro Subscribing Member

    Sep 1, 2015
    Burnley, UK
    Michael A. Sewell
    Interesting article, and as he seems to take great pains to point out, his choice to ditch M43 is based on his processing preferences with regards to his preferred "look".

    I'm currently assessing the same journey from Nikon (D4, D810, D3 and D700) to Olympus (E-M1). Yes, there are challenges (ISO range is certainly one), but I have found so much that I like about the camera, I am being a little creative with regards to circumnavigating the challenges as I identify them. So the ISO problem for First Dance at weddings can be countered with the 17mm f1.8 etc.
    Noise was an early observation, although it became quite apparent it didn't display in quite the same manner as I was accustomed to. It appeared more like the film grain I was comfortable with from my early days. Easily dealt with in post.

    So far, it's all good.
    • Like Like x 3
    • Informative Informative x 1
  5. Klorenzo

    Klorenzo Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 10, 2014
    Technical part is nonsense (DR, number of elements, telecentric = flat, etc.).
    All the "flat" shots are with tele lenses and one normal with flattish subjects too while the Rx100 shots are all with normal/wide angles and with clear lines (the Leica shot is debatable). What a coincidence...

    I seriously suspect he never used a tele lens on his FF Nikon.
    • Like Like x 2
  6. RnR

    RnR Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 25, 2011
    Brisbane, Australia
    I guess that means the latest Zeiss lens (Otus 28mm f1.4) with 16 elements in 13 groups will only be able to render 'flat' images...
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  7. T N Args

    T N Args Agent Photocateur

    Dec 3, 2013
    Adelaide, Australia
    call me Arg
    Speedy 73-post thread on DPR too about the same blog post.

    AFAICT he has actually talked himself into imagining things. Not uncommon among enthusiasts of every hobby.
    • Agree Agree x 4
  8. Holoholo55

    Holoholo55 Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Aug 13, 2014
    Honolulu, HI
    Arg, thanks for the DPReview forum link. I found this comment particularly entertaining...

    "In the absence of directly comparable images shot at same settings with both cameras, his "explanations" seem to me more like pseudo-technical rationalizations of his own preferences."
    • Like Like x 3
  9. eteless

    eteless Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 20, 2014
    • Funny Funny x 3
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. drd1135

    drd1135 Zen Snapshooter

    Mar 17, 2011
    Southwest Virginia
    The one comparison where he actually shoots the same scene (ironically Mickey Mouse) the images look identical. I guess you can convince yourself there is a difference if you look long enough and keep them carefully labeled.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  11. tyrphoto

    tyrphoto Mu-43 All-Pro

    May 25, 2014
    Seoul | NYC
    Horrible article. He's been sniffing too much fumes.
    • Like Like x 2
  12. silver92b

    silver92b Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 7, 2013
    Atlanta, GA
    I've seen youTube articles and read posts and blogs about this particular theme of fewer element lenses (primes) producing better 3D pop, and that the zoom lenses (as well as lenses with more elements) produce "flat images".
    I shot the same subject with an old (ancient design) Russian Industar 50mm f3.5 screw mount lens (4 element/3 group) on the FF Leica and the EM-1 with the Olympus 12-40 f2.8 Pro zoom (14 Elements in 9 Groups). Both were shot from approximately the same distance and with equivalent FL and f stop. (the tripod was stationary but the cameras don't sit exactly at the same level). I cropped both images to approximately the same size. I had to shoot the EM-1 a second time to make sure the ISO was the same (ISO 200), so it's not in the same exact place.... WB was set to AB.
    Anyway here they are, please feel free to opine of the 3D pop of one vs the other.


    Last edited: Oct 15, 2015
  13. silver92b

    silver92b Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 7, 2013
    Atlanta, GA
    To my eyes and IMHO, the second shot does look a lot nicer and it might be less "flat". But the sensors/processors might account for the difference as well.
  14. siftu

    siftu Mu-43 Top Veteran Subscribing Member

    Mar 26, 2015
    Bay Area, CA
    If the exposure/curves and white balance matched each other it would be a fairer comparison.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  15. bikerhiker

    bikerhiker Mu-43 All-Pro

    Dec 24, 2013
    People who are having these illusions that less optics or a full frame camera create the 3D pop should read this article..–horizontal_illusion

    Basically, both horizontal and vertical lines are of the same length. Now if they are; why then we think they ARE NOT?!?

    The reason is this.. Your eyes basically relay light waves into your brain. It is your brain which then forms a mental image of these lines; created a concept of length and then determine which line is shorter or longer.
    This has implications of your social upbringing and even ages.

    The same is with this nonsense article..

    Basically, your eyes see an image, relay the light waves into your brain. And then your brain forms a mental image and then created a concept that photography is 3 dimensional and then determine which images have more 3D pop or not.
    This is despite the fact that in photography, the sensor does not record depth. And that photography is 2 dimensional; not 3 dimensional. There's no point to debate, because the concept itself is out of this world.

    And then you have the Ken Wheeler style pseudo-science put in to justify the concept of 3 dimensional photography. I stopped feeding this troll. You know, maybe he intentionally did this to get lots of web traffic. Well he was successful in that!

    Remember; with enough convincing you would truly see that m43 images are flat. And so are A7 images because photography is flat; that's 2 dimensional. Is what your brain interprets it being not. But that's your brain. No one can debate nor argue with your brain which depends on your upbringing. Which means, if a photographer was brought up believing that photography is 3 dimensional (which a scary huge number of them DO), then of course you're going to say you see a difference. That's all just like the scientific experiment with the horizontal and vertical lines.
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2015
    • Agree Agree x 2
  16. mkallstrom

    mkallstrom Mu-43 Regular Subscribing Member

    May 3, 2012
    Stockholm, Sweden
    The focus plane also seems to differ slightly (more forward in the first shot).
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. wjiang

    wjiang Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    I think this says it all. He has been convinced by and cites Mr Ken Wheeler...

    Overall, the discussion (if you could call it that) appears to suffer from both attribution and confirmation bias. While I understand that optical defects can actually add character (otherwise why would people love Instagram effects, vignetting, swirly bokeh, etc), many of these qualities can be replicated with skilful PP. The examples presented came from far too different scenarios with different lighting, DoF, composition... etc to demonstrate the subtle differences.

    Mickey: Take the two pictures apart and overlay them on top of each other. It's obvious that the zoom is darker, a slightly different focal length (Mickey's size versus background is different), and the prime has better, smoother bokeh.

    Ex1: Better picture on the right has face tilted slightly more. More natural expression. Better light-the inferior picture has harsher lighting on the left and you can see the stronger specular highlight reflection in the eyes.

    Ex2: Inferior one has super bright whites on the doors and really deep shadows (you can clearly see bright blue sky). The giant shadow a building dominates the frame, the trees are short and have no foliage, so cast dark sharp shadows. Better one has more diffuse light (you can see the hazy sky), tall trees have foliage and cast soft shadows.
  18. manzoid

    manzoid Mu-43 Regular

    Jun 9, 2011
    When I first read the article I thought it was just written by someone lacking scientific literacy... That may still be the case, but judging from his responses to the comments I think the whole thing may be an intentional. He's certainly had a lot of comments and visits since this was linked on The article was written on September 25th and had not comments until shortly after showing up on 43rumors.
    • Like Like x 1
  19. JoFT

    JoFT Mu-43 Veteran Subscribing Member

    Nov 11, 2014
    I am happy that yannick hong sold his OM-D stuff, hopefully for a price which matches to the value he feels for the equipment. This would have made somebody pretty happy owning great camera stuff now!!!
    • Like Like x 2
  20. JoFT

    JoFT Mu-43 Veteran Subscribing Member

    Nov 11, 2014
    But coming back to the topic: Yes there is a lack of dynamic range in µ43. There are limitations - mainly in low light.

    f. i. It is impossible for me to stitch a panorama with the milky way shot at Glacier Point in Yosemite. The photo shown is shot with a Canon 5DMkIII and a Rokinon 2.8/14mm @ f2.8. I shot identical photos with the Lumix G7 and the Pany 7-14 f4 (I know, maybe this fstop less or the higher ISO is the reason) But these image I cannot stitch. Even not manually in PT-Gui pro: It´s too much noise... Even the align to grid function is not working.....


    But normally: I love my µ43 stuff: it´s always with me...
    • Like Like x 1
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.