1. Welcome to Mu-43.com—a friendly Micro 4/3 camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Not satisfied with m43

Discussion in 'Back Room' started by toyanucci, Sep 19, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. tosvus

    tosvus Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Jan 4, 2014
    Would be cool to see!
  2. zathras

    zathras Mu-43 Regular

    Jul 13, 2014
    Waikato, New Zealand
    Chris Nielsen
    Well here you go then!

    Delta3200 026.jpg
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
    • Like Like x 2
  3. DahakaNishoba

    DahakaNishoba New to Mu-43

    Sep 22, 2014
    I'm a long time lurker and registered JUST to reply to this topic.

    in the last 2-3 years I had (and sold):

    Nikon D5100/D7000
    Sony Nex (16mpx)

    Sony A7 Full Frame

    Panasonic G6
    Olympus E-m10

    (plus Pentax Q and sony A3000)

    Last camera sold is the E-M10....
    oh god, is capable of really nice shots...I used primes (90% of time sigma 60mm and PanaLeica 25mm 1.4)
    Light, cheap, fasto to focus, sharp as hell, a joy to use and carry around.

    But when it comes to actual IQ (partially) and especially high iso noise m4/3 really falls behind sony sensors (the 24FF obviously and a bit under the 16mp aps-c)
    Every single time any of you posted an High ISO sample shot with M4/3 you all just tricked....you post only subjects under nice light where bumping up ISO wasn't really necessary....so is really easy to hide problems with PP. (even dark shots of musicians the subjects are under bright light and well exposed, easier to hide noise in shadow area)

    Real trouble comes when u are in bad/really bad conditions when you shot underexposed and have to gain back and recover shadows or details in PP....bye bye M4/3 on anything above 800/1200 ISO, WAY more noise than Sony apsc/FF sensors

    maybe i'm too picky when it comes to ISO and grain/noise, but felt REALLY uncomfortable shooting above ISO 800/1K on MFT, 1600/2k APS-C, maybe more than 6400/10k on the A7.

    (on a side note I liked to shoot with vintage or adapted lenses too, MFT sensor is too sensitive on lens IQ, anything not ultra-stellar-ultra-sharp and recent showed less detail compared to the same lens used on a larger and less dense sensor)

    Still have not find the perfect system for me (Could be Fuji but is too expensive overall) but regarding MFT: I'll wait till big sensor upgrade before buyin' olympus again.....they are falling into the canon loop: same recycled sensor on every camera.....
  4. woof

    woof Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Oct 18, 2011
    The present.

    That is likely all it would take to get your noise in line. I almost chucked Olympus back at the EP3 for this.
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Toddster

    Toddster Mu-43 Veteran Subscribing Member

    Aug 7, 2013
    Todd Cleaver
    I believe that the OP was sincere in his post and that in general this has been a productive thread. The following is not intended to reflect on the OP (or other posters) but is my humble attempt at humor.

    Post from the future:
    I just purchased a brand X camera and am new to the system. I read many good things before making the switch from Y. After several nights of shooting I am very disappointed. All of my photos taken at anything over ISO 409,600 had quite a bit of noise and just did not 'pop'. I have heard that system Z has clean files even at ISO 1,638,400. Any recommendations?

    I love how far our equipment has advanced; but, momma don't take my Kodachrome away.

    • Like Like x 5
  6. minibokeh

    minibokeh Guest

    I'm very familiar with Canon and Nikon current generation FF sensors.
    Noise characteristics are not that dissimilar from m43.

    E.g. ISO 2000 on OM-D E-M1, pushed one stop (exposure +0.98):
    <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/101667287@N08/15138113409" title="140219-212821 by Moritz Berger, on Flickr"> View attachment 386154 "180" height="240" alt="140219-212821"></a>
    Sometimes, choice of post-processing chain can make a bigger difference than most people think. Here, I'm not using Lightroom but Capture One Pro 8 to get the results I want from my RAW images. No, Lightroom is also not the best choice for full frame (much of the time).
  7. Neftun

    Neftun Mu-43 Veteran

    Jul 15, 2012
    Patrick Kristiansen
    • Like Like x 2
  8. silver92b

    silver92b Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 7, 2013
    Atlanta, GA
    I totally respect the OP's opinion, I am pretty sure that in some respects the larger sensors of some Canikon cameras produces better results than the M43 system, even with the E-M1 and a pro lens. It's just what each person wants. I became enamored of the detail that my friend got from his FF Sony camera. Nothing that my M43 did was close... So I went and bought a DP2 Merrill.. All the detail you might want, rivaling and/or surpassing the high end FF bodies and glass.

    However, there are some minor issues :wink:, Like a super slow processor, a finicky camera, poor low light performance, etc. But in the end, in some aspects it beats the hell out of almost anything else. I shoot also with a digital rangefinder. 6mp of resolution, slow saving, max 2GB SD cards, etc. But in other respects, it's awesome! Something about shooting with that camera makes me take great images... So, I still love my M43 (I have 3 bodies and too many lenses), but I can understand the OPs desire for something that is better for his preferences.

    I would only suggest that he tries several options before committing to the next purchase. Do waste your $$, rent before buying so you don't take a big a beating as selling your stuff at ebay prices after paying retail :tongue:

    Good luck with your next system.

    Just for the hell of it, I this shot in almost total darkness, I don't know where that light came from in the background, but I certainly did not see it before a bit of PP in LR5. I guessed the focus, rested against the bench arm and squeezed the shutter..... E-M1 12-40mm f2.8 ISO 1000 1.6"

    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
    • Like Like x 1
  9. vadimraskin

    vadimraskin New to Mu-43

    Mar 26, 2014
    I sometimes push my EM-1 into ISO 6400 and while the final image needs some work it is most of the times quite good enough for printing on smaller scale and definately adequate for web or screen viewing. The keybto 4/3 or m4/3 photography is proper exposure. You nail it, and your images will shine right out of camera. We just came back from North Eastern trip and I have about 1,400 shots to go thru. At the quick glance only 20% of them need some work in LR and mostly those shot in the middle of the day under bright sun. The rest are fine as JPEGs OOC. I haven't even touched the noise slider in LR since getting EM-1 after older E-30. Before you ditch your set up, why don't you try and learn it.
  10. DahakaNishoba

    DahakaNishoba New to Mu-43

    Sep 22, 2014
  11. minibokeh

    minibokeh Guest

    ... even if you don't carry a light meter, mu43 is about as forgiving as other systems. To demonstrate, I gave the example of an ISO 2000 image pushed one stop (= effective ISO 4000) above.
    Hey, here's one at ISO 6400 that I took literally at night with the OM-D E-M1 (Seattle pier, 5:54am):
    <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/101667287@N08/15138822278" title="14096-055450 by Moritz Berger, on Flickr"> View attachment 386165 "240" height="180" alt="14096-055450"></a>
    I haven't tried the new "see in the dark" Sony yet, but at least the Canon 5d mark III / Nikon D8x0 generation of full frame would not have bested this performance (IMHO, YMMV).

    P.S.: No tricks -- this is SOOC, not raw (which would have pushed the envelope even further).
    Of course one can always ask for more, but we're definitely approaching "good enough" territory here. cf. Thom Hogan "Is Pursuit of High ISO a fool's errand": http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/is-pursuit-of-high-iso-a.html
  12. Dan43

    Dan43 Mu-43 Regular

    Apr 25, 2014
    It's simple physics. Larger sensors will always have the superior noise performance. If noise is your primary concern, you need to go for FF. There is no question about it:


    Noise is basically inversely proportional to the diode capacitance. Larger pixel area -> bigger diode capacitance -> less noise.
  13. kevinparis

    kevinparis Cantankerous Scotsman Subscribing Member

    Feb 12, 2010
    Gent, Belgium
    • Like Like x 7
  14. tosvus

    tosvus Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Jan 4, 2014
    Though with the caveat that there are two ways to largely compensate for this on M43:
    1. Buy faster lenses. A F1.2 lens on m43 vs a F2.8 lens on FF helps a lot. If you were to use F1.2 on FF, your DoF may end up so thin that you have a hard time getting what you want in focus.
    2. If comparing with a FF that has a lens without OIS, shooting still subjects, M43 can further catch up.

    Of course, in the end, if you want the ultimate low light beast, get a Sony A7S, and pair it with the fastest lens you are comfortable with (in terms of focusing)
    • Like Like x 1
  15. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    @Kevin. Exactly. Not all want or need absolutely noise free images at ISO6400, but need to be able to use that range when required and get adequate results. I have no fear using ISO6400 with my E-M1 at any time, day or night, it produces results that I can use just about anywhere. Many also seem to forget, or not realise, that some of these ISO monsters actually do noise reduction on the RAW files, so you can't always compare that to cameras that don't.
    • Like Like x 3
  16. Dan43

    Dan43 Mu-43 Regular

    Apr 25, 2014
    Good Points! The increased DoF at large apertures (coupled with the excellent eye detection) is one of the reasons why I'm so happy with mu43. Before I made the switch, when photographing people with my Canon DSLR, going below f2.8 always meant reducing the "keeper-rate" to about 10%, since I would constantly miss the intended focus point (might have been my lack of sharpshooting skills). Now, with mu43, I don't even have to think about opening up the aperture all the way. It simply works. I might have to pay for it with a bit more of noise; but for me, correct focus is much more important than the amount of noise.
    • Like Like x 1
  17. toyanucci

    toyanucci Mu-43 Regular

    Aug 8, 2014
    I could say a few things but I won't because I'd probably get banned. If you have nothing constructive to add, go take some pictures or play with your girlfriend or something.

  18. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team Subscribing Member

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    Oh dear, this is getting to be a messy thread....

    Photographers are a pretty mixed church and we all have different standards, desires, expectations, acceptable compromises, purposes, pockets, interests, etc. etc. There's a place for all the wonderful kit at our disposal these days and as Kevin and others have pointed out repeatedly there is no kit made by any manufacturer at any price that will make you a better photographer.

    Is it time for a mod to put this thread out of its misery?
  19. toyanucci

    toyanucci Mu-43 Regular

    Aug 8, 2014
    I would rather they didn't. This thread has proven to be very informative and dynamic (outside of the few rumps here and there). Others could get quite a bit of information from this thread.
  20. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Apr 10, 2009
    Boston, MA (USA)
    Closing the thread does not prevent others from getting information from it.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  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.