Micro 4/3 is now beating several cameras with larger sensors

[Karim Ghantous]

Both the OM-1 and the GH6 have made a few cameras with larger sensors pretty much obsolete overnight. They have also beat some of them, including Panasonic's own S series, in several metrics.

 

The A9II is based on 2017 tech, but the OM-1 pretty much beats it in everything except very high ISO and perhaps AF, although these days it's very close there.

 

The Leica SL 601, now only available used, has pretty much nothing over the new MFT bodies. And it's about the same price.

 

The Panasonic S1H is completely obsolete, save for very low light.

 

The Canon R5 has the resolution advantage, but not the quality advantage: the GH6 has better image quality at 120fps in 4K. The GH6 also has less rolling shutter.

 

The A7SIII is amazingly good but apart from applications where you need AF, I'm not sure why I'd choose it over the GH6.

 

If you're going with big sensors, you might want to make proper use of the format: get the highest resolving sensor you can. Otherwise, there isn't much point in the bigger lenses.

 

Cameras like the SL-2, A1, Z7, R5 all have something that the MFT cameras don't have. That's an objective fact, not an opinion. Having said that, to make full use of them for subjects like birds and so on, you really will need to match them with 600mm lenses. Otherwise, you'll have to crop, which brings them right back down to maybe 25Mpx or so.

[invisibleflash]

I told you before, even the old gen m43 were great. The problem with them is no easy-to-use use manual controls.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Nonsense.

Size still matters. That is still evident.

Unless, of course, you judge by what you can see on a phone or other device. Thingies that, like anything, are not capable of showing anything that goes beyond their limitations.

Or if you forget that cameras are made to create images, and those images are the things you have to judge a camera by. Not AF speed or what storage it uses.

Edited February 24, 2022 by q.g._de_bakker

[mjferron]

I traded in my Panasonic G9 in for a Nikon Z5 when they were a Black Friday Special @ $999. I could not warm up to the G9 as it had some operational quirks that drove my crazy at times. Resolution between 20 and 24 mp is a talking point only but that sensor in the Z5 delivers an impressive look of smoothness and has both better DR and high ISO image quality. Hard to beat the affordable lens selection of M43 though.

[JDMvW]

So they say, but note who "they" are.

 

count pixels count

[Ken Katz]

The new m43 cameras are impressive upgrades to previous models, but they do not have tech that will overcome the disadvantage of a sensor about 1/4 the size of FF. I use m43 because I need a smaller and lighter kit and live with a smaller shooting envelope provided by those cameras compared with current generation FF. A camera in my hand and the ability to walk extra steps is worth more to me than a better sensor that sits in a bag (along with a kit of bigger/heavier lenses) in my hotel room.

[Robin Smith]

This is true in the sense that miniaturization benefits all sensor sizes, bigger and smaller. But in terms of perceived quality they rapidly converge to a point where extreme magnifications or ISO becomes necessary to perceive benefit. Differences in depth of field in the angle of view probably affect image perception more.

[Sanford]

ISO 12,500 vs ISO 25,000? Really, when did anyone have regular use for anything over ISO 400.

[Ken Katz]

When you shoot things that move in less than ideal light using an f5.6 telezoom, iso can creep up on you. My em5iii is decent at 3200 and tolerable at 5000

[JDMvW]

Really, when did anyone have regular use for anything over ISO 400.

 

use with telextenders, available darkness shots, street shots at night......

 

Of course, people who never stretch beyond " f/8 and be there" should be ashamed to go even to ISO 400.

 

at 24800 at 5AM with f/4 lens, so it's noisy, sue me. For me it beats no picture at all, "regular" or not

 

For years I kept GAF in business with my f/1.2 lens and GAF 500. This is better than that, and I can always add "grain" for that 'painterly' look.

Edited February 24, 2022 by JDMvW

[Karim Ghantous]

Nonsense.

Size still matters. That is still evident.

Sensor size is not a predictor of performance. The fact that the GH6 delivers better 4K than the R5 is evidence of that. Some of the 36mm sensors are trumped or matched by smaller ones in low light. And many of the larger sensors have worse rolling shutter than some of the smaller ones. The hard rule that applied to film does not always apply to digital.

Edited February 25, 2022 by Karim Ghantous

[httpwww.photo.netbarry]

Sensor size is not a predictor of performance. The fact that the GH6 delivers better 4K than the R5 is evidence of that. Some of the 36mm sensors are trumped or matched by smaller ones in low light. And many of the larger sensors have worse rolling shutter than some of the smaller ones. The hard rule that applied to film does not always apply to digital.

What performance. You've been beating this drum for quite a while. Please specify. If you are talking about IQ alone, given quality of glass and sensor the larger sensor will out perform a smaller sensor unless you're comparing older generation APC or FF sensors to the latest tech and processing engines, but all that being equal, IQ can safely be assumed to be superior in terms of the clarity of images. Though I know some really small camera systems like the older GRD series with a smaller than M 4/3 have a pleasing grainy looking image, but that's a purely aesthetic matter.

 

So when you talk about performance, you need to break it down.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Sensor size is not a predictor of performance. The fact that the GH6 delivers better 4K than the R5 is evidence of that. Some of the 36mm sensors are trumped or matched by smaller ones in low light. And many of the larger sensors have worse rolling shutter than some of the smaller ones. The hard rule that applied to film does not always apply to digital.

Yes, in theory, big sensors can be worse than small ones. If they are made (to be) worse. And given enough and equal attention to quality, larger always 'wins' over smaller.

 

Your assertion that that tiny micro four thirds wil beat cameras with larger sensors is not realistic.

My m43 camera (Pen F) certainly does not better any of my larger format sensor cameras, from DX to medium format. Not bad, if used within the range of its possibilities. But not in the same league as the bigger ones.

[Karim Ghantous]

IQ can safely be assumed to be superior in terms of the clarity of images.

Let's not assume.

 

I have a hypothesis: that the Leica M11 challenges and beats some modern medium format cameras, including Leica's own S3, in DR and colour. Based on what I've seen so far, that's a safe hypothesis, but not a safe claim. I need to see a comparison. Just as an example, the SL2 was compared with the X1D. The X1D was superior in IQ, but I know that because I looked at evidence.

 

None of that is important to every single photographer. In some cases it's quite irrelevant. Everyone has their own metrics which they need to prioritise.

 

Your assertion that that tiny micro four thirds wil beat cameras with larger sensors is not realistic.

It isn't always true. But it is true in several cases. There is hard objective evidence for this. It's not controversial, either.

[q.g._de_bakker]

It isn't always true. But it is true in several cases. There is hard objective evidence for this. It's not controversial, either.

It may be true for one MFT camera and selected features compared to a few selected larger sensor cameras.

But not for MFT cameras and cameras with larger sensors in general. Not even remotely. Size makes a huge difference.

 

So change "several" to "one or two". Add "maybe one" to m43. And add "comparing certain, selected features".

[Mark Salo]

Let's not assume.

 

I have a hypothesis:

So let's hypothesize.

[dcstep]

Micro 4/3d this:

 

Close-up Of Northern Harrier Huntress by David Stephens, on Flickr

 

Or this:

 

Harrier Huntress Flies Close To Me by David Stephens, on Flickr

Edited March 1, 2022 by dcstep

[Karim Ghantous]

David, I have absolutely no experience with BIF so I cannot say whether it's possible or not. I just don't know. The A1 is in a league of its own, but the A9II I would consider a dragon slayed.

[Allen Herbert]

Not sure about the beating thing.

 

But, from a technical image point of view, few folks could tell any difference, from whatever size sensor, from a large size print size. Time and Time again has this been proved. regardless of sensor size.

 

Do we print the size of Empire State building, methinks not. It is all about marketing, and that's why they are payed the big bucks.

 

And they all have an Leica M10 ,or, the latest Sony, or, whatever.. Thanks.

 

The real world. Get your hands in your pockets you sad lot....believe.

Edited March 5, 2022 by Allen Herbert

[q.g._de_bakker]

Allen, i think you are confusing pixel count issues with sensor size issues.

Yes, you can tell without having things blown up to Empire State Building proportions. If you can't... well... you said something about, what was it? "Sad lot"?

Edited March 5, 2022 by q.g._de_bakker

[Gary Naka]

ISO 12,500 vs ISO 25,000? Really, when did anyone have regular use for anything over ISO 400.

 

Everyone is different.

It depends on what you shoot, and with what gear.

 

I am OFTEN over ISO 400. Shooting high school sports on the soccer field at night and in the gym.

A couple of weeks ago, I was up to ISO 20,000 on the soccer field.

And yesterday, I was up to ISO 10,000 in the gym, at f/2.8.

[httpwww.photo.netbarry]

@Sanford

FWIW I'm above ISO 400 more often then not. Modern sensors are so relatively good. I have no problem shooting at 3200 with Fuji's, and even higher if needed. I don't use flash much. But you know horses for courses.

[Brian]

Interesting thread. I'm primarily an outdoor photographer and I look for "good light" to make my photos, so I would hardly ever go above ISO400. But as Barry said, horses for courses. I read about shooting sports in semi darkness and I just think it's a different world. But it's good that modern gear makes it possible.

[Gary Naka]

Interesting thread. I'm primarily an outdoor photographer and I look for "good light" to make my photos, so I would hardly ever go above ISO400. But as Barry said, horses for courses. I read about shooting sports in semi darkness and I just think it's a different world. But it's good that modern gear makes it possible.

 

I was shooting golf, outdoors, a few days ago.

At 3pm, light was good, and life was good.

But, 3 hours later, as the sun went down behind the hills, the green of the final hole was in shadow.

I was at ISO 8000, 1/250 sec, f/2.8, :(.

And it kept getting worse, till I gave up shooting, and did not shoot the final foursome.

[rodeo_joe1]

A format wars revival? How quaint.

Professional photographers have traditionally had a range of formats at their disposal, in order to choose the right tool for the job. Small formats for their greater depth-of-field at a given aperture, and larger formats where image quality counts, or where a shallow D-o-F is called for. It's pretty much that simple.

 

Nobody in their right mind would use a 5x4 technical camera for birds-in-flight or for macro photography of insects. But if you want rectilinear architectural shots then it's the ideal tool.

 

Every format has its place and use. So it's not a case of 'this format beats that format hands down', but which format to select for the best result, depending on application.

 

If you're just wandering the streets snapshooting, then the u4/3rds (of naff-all) format is probably as good as any other.