Not satisfied with m43

Status
Not open for further replies.

DahakaNishoba

New to Mu-43
Joined
Sep 22, 2014
Messages
2
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.....
 

woof

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
511
Location
The present.
Gradation=Normal

That is likely all it would take to get your noise in line. I almost chucked Olympus back at the EP3 for this.
 
Joined
Aug 7, 2013
Messages
491
Location
Florida
Real Name
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.

:smile:
 
M

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).
 

Neftun

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jul 15, 2012
Messages
415
Location
Norway
Real Name
Patrick Kristiansen
"But when it comes to actual IQ 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,QUOTE]

You may be right on all those points, but hey, this is a forum for users who are plenty happy with performance of m43.

Not to insult you, but the sentence "when you shoot underexposed" kinda tells the story for me.

I've learned to not underexpose my shots, unless it is for a certain look of course. Technique trumps technology any day.



Patrick K
 

silver92b

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Messages
1,033
Location
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)
 

vadimraskin

New to Mu-43
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Messages
1
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.
 

DahakaNishoba

New to Mu-43
Joined
Sep 22, 2014
Messages
2
You may be right on all those points, but hey, this is a forum for users who are plenty happy with performance of m43.

Not to insult you, but the sentence "when you shoot underexposed" kinda tells the story for me.

I've learned to not underexpose my shots, unless it is for a certain look of course. Technique trumps technology any day.



Patrick K

So, practical example, dark stage with moving subjects, sigma 60 2.8 wide open, cant shoot under 1/100 or even less to freeze slight movement of singer, cant go more than 2.8 (lens limit), you have 2 options: shoot at iso 1000 and recover in PP, shoot at 3200 for "correct" exposure. and i'm talkin about OPTIONS, but there will be situations where u fail to expose or you just need to shoot in full Manual and hope to recover in pp at home....

Are you telling me in both situations M4/3 files will be equal both in "recovery capability" (at lower but not base iso) or high iso noise compared to an APSC or FF ? :rolleyes:

Sorry never had this equality.......this is seriously not the case.....
these are not monitor calibration issues, just limits of the sensor......

btw everyone can be fine shootin with his own equipment, (and I enjoyed A HELL LOT my shooting with the E-M10) but just like OP I noticed differences in formats
 
M

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
 

kevinparis

Cantankerous Scotsman
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
3,912
Location
Gent, Belgium
So, practical example, dark stage with moving subjects, sigma 60 2.8 wide open, cant shoot under 1/100 or even less to freeze slight movement of singer, cant go more than 2.8 (lens limit), you have 2 options: shoot at iso 1000 and recover in PP, shoot at 3200 for "correct" exposure. and i'm talkin about OPTIONS, but there will be situations where u fail to expose or you just need to shoot in full Manual and hope to recover in pp at home....

Are you telling me in both situations M4/3 files will be equal both in "recovery capability" (at lower but not base iso) or high iso noise compared to an APSC or FF ? :rolleyes:

Sorry never had this equality.......this is seriously not the case.....
these are not monitor calibration issues, just limits of the sensor......

btw everyone can be fine shootin with his own equipment, (and I enjoyed A HELL LOT my shooting with the E-M10) but just like OP I noticed differences in formats
as is often with these sorts of arguments....nobody posts a real life example to prove their point....I really object to people spouting their views and opinions about one format or another without showing what THEY are aiming to or already achieve... not even a link to their Flickr page

Without actual examples it is difficult to get context to ones argument. Here are a few shots that I have taken in non test situations... they work for me... I doubt that for my needs that another camera would have actually delivered a better result... thats not to say another format might have produced a technically better result... but you know I actually don't care.

The quality of the image will beat image quality in most cases...If you spend your life jumping from system to system searching for the best 'image quality' you are probably missing out on actually improving your photo taking skills

EM5 @5000 ISO

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
P5150080 by kevinparis, on Flickr

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
P5170120 by kevinparis, on Flickr

EM1@6400

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
P5190319 by kevinparis, on Flickr

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
P5190215 by kevinparis, on Flickr


K
 

tosvus

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jan 4, 2014
Messages
689
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.
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)
 

OzRay

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
4,991
Location
South Gippsland, Australia
Real Name
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.
 

Dan43

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Apr 25, 2014
Messages
50
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)
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.
 

toyanucci

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Aug 8, 2014
Messages
115
What the hell?!
How is looking at in-shop pictures on the back of a camera any guide to how this thing is going to take pictures in the real world?

Brain cells!

Troll!;
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.

Peace.
 

pdk42

One of the "Eh?" team
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
6,775
Location
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?
 

toyanucci

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Aug 8, 2014
Messages
115
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?
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
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