I am sure if you lurk around online photography forums, you will find certain assumptions on the inferiority of using smaller sensor systems such as Olympus Micro Four Thirds system, in comparison against APS-C or Full Frame cameras. While most of the claims were generally true to a certain extent, in several cases the fact has been stretched and pulled to serve the biased opinion of certain measurebators and camera bashers.
So here is a list of popular myths about Olympus Micro Four Thirds system:
1) Poor low light shooting, can't use high ISO.
I am fairly happy with images I obtain from my E-M5 and E-PL5 up to ISO6,400. In fact the high ISO images were better on the newer E-M1, with noticeable improvements in noise control and detail retention.
2) Inability to create shallow depth of field (blur background)
While it is true that the larger the sensor size the shallow the depth of field will be, I did not find any issue creating shallow depth of field for my shots. Using lenses such as 25mm F1.8 and 45mm F1.8 helped me to achieve blurred background, and the great thing about Olympus lenses, they are already very sharp wide open, and you can take advantage of shooting at F1.8 without compromising detail loss.
3) It is harder to hold and steady smaller cameras, with bigger DSLR providing better handling
I admit coming from a DSLR usage for many years (E-520 and E-5), the E-M5 seemed rather small, and not as comfortable to hold in the beginning. All it took was just a few shooting sessions to readjust myself and I never looked back. You just have to change the way you hold the camera. Since it is much lighter, you do not have to spend too much effort stabilizing it. That 5-Axis Image Stabilization, once you have experienced how it helped to keep your shots steady, it is difficult to shoot with another camera without it! Only Olympus users will fully understand this.
4) Smaller sensor has limited dynamic range
Technology is getting better and better, and I do not find myself in a situation where dynamic range limitation would destroy my shot. In fact, in comparison to APS-C sensors, the dynamic range is on par (I have tried a handful of recent APS-C DSLR models from various brands). However, I must admit though, full frame cameras do have that extra bit of flexibility, retaining details from highlights especially. To work around this limitation on my Olympus cameras, in situations of extremely harsh lighting condition, I would choose to underexpose the image to preserve the highlight, and in post processing I would lift up the shadows. The shadow detail retention on Olympus cameras is quite good actually.
5) Smaller cameras like OM-D are just for enthusiasts or hobbysts, not for professional or serious use.
While I do agree that the OM-D was mostly targeted toward advanced users, especially hobbysts, the fact remains that more and more professional photographers are adopting the OM-D system in their professional workflow. You ask who they are? Here is a list of TEN from all around the world (click here).
6) DSLR has much more reliable autofocus
Not entirely true. In Single Autofocus mode, Olympus OM-D and PEN cameras are actually fast enough to challenge even the most expensive DSLR cameras out there. Yes, in terms of AF tracking Olympus cameras are still admittedly behind, but hey, E-M1 has made a significant improvement and surely things will get better and better. If the continuous autofocus tracking on Olympus camera is on par or surpassing the competition, I don't think there are many more points left to attack Olympus.
7) You need super high megapixel cameras to achieve super sharp images
Higher megapixels do equal better resolution and better fine detail reproduction, but that much extra megapixels are meaningless if you do not have equally capable lenses to resolve all that resolution. On the other hand, even a slight error (miss focus, camera shake, lens imperfections eg corner softness, chromatic aberration) will be amplified and be more destructive to your final image output. Olympus system took care of this by having high performing optics in the M.Zuiko lenses, and the application of 5-Axis Image Stabilization that has been highly acclaimed thus far.
8) Fuji/Canon/Nikon/whatever other cameras have great colors.
Personal choice, and preferences. I personally like what I see from Olympus cameras. People have always asked me what I did in post processing to get the colors they see on images on my blog. I do not know why it is so hard for people to believe that I did not do much post processing at all and the colors you see are almost identical to what came out straight from the camera.
All images were taken with Olympus OM-D E-M5 and PEN E-PL5, with M.Zuiko lenses 25mm F1.8, 45mm F1.8, Olympus 9mm F8 fisheye body cap lens, and the Panasonic 14mm F2.5 lens.
Shallow depth of field achieved by 45mm F1.8 lens. Creamy, smooth, buttery bokeh, shooting at F1.8 wide open, yet the lens is super sharp.
Olympus colors! If this is not good colors I do not know what is. Beautiful skin tone, overall true to life colors, they just look great!
Fast Autofocus. I saw the man drinking and I quickly snapped a shot. As he saw me he moved the drink away, and I managed to shoot this before he reacted. How much more faster do we need the AF to be?
ISO5,000. Or was it ISO6,400, but still the image was far from unusable.
The man was moving away, and he was moving quite fast. Did I have problem tracking his movement? Who cares, I just used Single AF, and every time I focused and shot, I never missed. If the autofocus was already so fast, in such situations, single focusing was sufficient to freeze moving subjects with high accuracy.
Smaller cameras appear less threatening. Hence people are more willing to have their photographs taken and they ask less questions.
Great optics in the lens + 5-Axis Image Stabilization, you get SHARP images.
Are you using an Olympus camera? Do you come across such myths or comments from other photographers or friends? If so what do you do in such situations?
___________________________________________________
Please support me by "liking" my FACEBOOK PAGE (click).
Sinds 2006, when I started shooting with Olympus DSLR all those myths, you mentioned, came across. Till E-M5 some of them were right. Till E-M1 the myth about the AF was right. But short time ago I did a shoot out with E-5 +50-200swd and E-M1+75mm at a show with birds of prey. The Results were amazing. The E-M1 won it. If I was fast enough to hold the AF-field on the birds, nearly every picture was sharp. Perfectly focussed.
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing your thoughts Katharina. Indeed Olympus has come a long way!
DeleteI can take milky way on iso3200 with no issue. Who say Olympus can't go for high iso?
ReplyDeleteFor focusing speed, try to believe. Don't think apsc on market can win a step. :)
Love your Milky Way shots! And congratulations for winning the Asia Ocenia Grand Prix!
DeleteGood pictures are made by the photographer and light. If you know your equipment, in menaing of
ReplyDeleteknowing it's strengths and weaknesses, and love what your doing the "system" gets secondary.
I've used an E-M5 with various lenses (the 45'er is still one i like a lot) and my actual "tool" is a
Canon 6D which i use with a 40mm STM for 70% of my light capturing. I'm taking one picture a day
in minimun and practicing is the one important key and not the system. Passion is the second key.
Frank
Hey Frank,
DeleteThanks for sharing your opinion, and I agree with you, knowing equipment and being able to optimize the gear are very important.
Passion! How can we ever move on without it.
I got so fed up with the nonsense that I wrote a blog piece about it.
ReplyDeletehttp://paulamyes.com/2014/01/11/equivalence-schmalivance/
G'day Paul, the Equivalence thread confuses logicians because they don't know when they have walked past straight facts and onto planks of assumptions. My angle: http://anandasim.blogspot.com.au/2014/05/the-issue-of-equivalence.html
DeleteHey Paul and Ananda,
DeleteGreat writings, and thanks for sharing. I am sure many will find them useful.
Thanks Robin. It takes a while before even intelligent people figure out what is a fact, what is an assumption and what is an implication based on assumption. As my work mentor used to say "bs baffles brains" hehe
DeleteGreat blog, Robin! And I totally agree with all the points you made, especially the 3rd one about Olympus' s IBIS, I just can't live without it! With IBIS I missed less shots than I did with my old canon rebel series.
ReplyDeleteI am very content about my switch to Olympus. You can find some of my pics shot with Olympys at https://www.flickr.com/photos/photoknotto/
Keep up the good work. I always enjoy reading you blog, Robin!
Hi Knott B,
DeleteThanks for the kind words, and I fully agree, I cannot live without the 5-Axis IS now.
I recently got an E-M10. While the IBIS isn't as good as it's bigger siblings (which I haven't used), even the stabilization on this camera amazes me! I've often been able to get sharp images down to 1/5 of a second. Combine that with fast primes and decent high ISO performance, and I'm sold! My favorite lenses are the 45mm and the Panny 20mm. I've also been shooting here and there with a Nikon 100mm F2.8 manual lens for more of a telephoto view, and between the peaking, zooming for focusing, and IBIS, I'm amazed at how well this lens works, as well! Can't knock the 12mm F2.0 either. Haters gonna hate, but for those that have tried the system, the portability and image quality combination is top notch!
ReplyDeleteHey Chris,
Delete"for those that have tried the system, the portability and image quality combination is top notch!" I could not say that better myself.
I agreed with all your points. However, this is a uphill battle to correct the photographers mind-set..even my local shop which sell m4/3 or APC or full fame cameras has a banner stating "the bigger the sensor, the better the Image quality"..mmm
ReplyDeleteHi James,
DeleteUphill battle, but sooner or later, people will come to accept that mirrorless is indeed the future.
Hear, hear! A few additional talking points:
ReplyDelete"DSLR has much more reliable autofocus" -- an odd belief, given that so many high-end DSLRs now have "AF fine tuning" menus. When did it become MY job to calibrate my camera's autofocus so it will work properly? Shouldn't the manufacturer do that? And yet, when I used a Nikon, I constantly had to fiddle with these controls, and worried constantly that my defocused pictures were because I hadn't set them correctly. When I first tried a mirrorless camera, I loved the fact that its contrast-based autofocus was right on target, right out of the box, with every lens. When the AF system says the camera is in focus, it IS in focus, period! To me that's what "reliable" autofocus means.
"You can't create shallow depth-of-field" -- well, obviously you CAN... maybe not AS shallow, all other things being equal, but certainly you can get nicely blurred backgrounds, and isn't that the point? Personally, I think the ultra-thin DOF thing is just a fad that's rapidly becoming a visual cliche, like "beating the sun," and I hope both of them go away very soon as I'm tired of looking at them.
Besides, the DOF argument cuts both ways. Recently I had to do a group photo of 20 people, using only two small strobes and umbrellas for lighting. With my Olympus and 25mm lens, f/4 gave me enough DOF to have everyone comfortably in focus, and my flashes were more than powerful enough. With a 35mm-format camera (I refuse to call them "full frame") and 50mm lens, I would have had to use at least f/8 to have everyone in focus, and then my flashes wouldn't have had enough power to give a good exposure. Should we start saying, "Micro Four Thirds makes your flashes 4x more powerful"? :-)
"You need super high megapixel cameras to achieve super sharp images" -- This is the biggest lie of the photo industry, and even Robin seems to believe it ("higher megapixels do equal better resolution and better fine detail reproduction.") Actually, that's only true if you zoom in and examine the pixels at 100% on your computer monitor... and (except for photographers) nobody every does that! People don't want to see your pixels; they want to see the WHOLE image, the way you composed and framed it to express your vision.
Whenever you output your image at some specific size on some device -- whether that device is a computer monitor, an HDTV screen, a photo print, or a printed page -- there's an optimum number of pixels for that size on that device. Any additional pixels beyond that optimum number don't provide better resolution or finer detail -- they're simply thrown away. The output devices and sizes that most of us can afford don't even make full use of a 16-megapixel image; the excess is just "going to waste." Think about that before you decide you need to spend thousands for a camera with a few more megapixels!
So those are some of the responses I have prepared for myths and comments from other photographers. In all honesty, though, I've never actually had to use them! When other photographers see me out taking pictures, the most common responses are along this line: "Wow, that's nice and small! I wish I had brought my camera, but I don't like to lug it around except on special occasions."
Hi Ranger 9,
Deletethanks so much for elaborating further on my original thoughts, and yes, your points are all valid! I think your argument on the ways we view the images is the most striking, because no matter how much megapixel we packed into the image at the end of the day we don't actually see that much of the megapixels anyway when we present our photographs. So true and yet people often overlook this fact.
Dear Ranger9
DeleteRegarding the autofocus calibration it's unfortunately a true fact. It might be perfect out of the box, bot with the usage and time it will change.
I bought a reference (lenscal) to do this. Costs me 10 minutes and I do it each 2-3 months. That keeps trouble away when viewing pictures afterwards.
Hi Robin, all your points are valid. plus, know about your equipment and upgrade photo skill is also important to take good pictures. I know some photographers using FF don't even frame their photo when they shoot, they just crop it out when in computer LOL
ReplyDeleteFrancis from Toronto
Oh my, those croppers are shameful!
DeleteI still have more luck with my E-5 in sports than the GH3, and I can focus the E-1 with 50-200mm manually more reliably than the GH3 with 35-100mm auto focus.
ReplyDeleteI like the GH3 for other reasons, even besides video. The fully articulated rear display and 12-40mm lens have given me great freedom in getting difficult architectural shots that I could not get otherwise.
I continue to think about another dSLR to use, but wait. I was complaining recently about those who use APS-C or larger sensors who don't get enough depth of field to see the product clearly. Just because you have less depth of field doesn't mean that it's correct to use it that way. :-D Besides, I usually have to fight to get enough depth of field with Four-Thirds or micro Four-Thirds. I never have too much.
I am glad to hear the E-5 performing so well! And seriously that E-1? Wow, never knew it was that capable!
DeleteYou are right, the argument for depth of field goes both ways, when we do need more depth of field, smaller sensor does have the advantage!
Great points, i've used everything from point and shoots, 1", u43, APS-C and "full-frame" 35mm sensors. There are advantages and disadvantages to everything. Strong arguments for both sides and the winner really is the consumer. We have this rapid pace of advancing technology which is a treat for all of us as we have this wealth of choice available to us. Unfortunately I sold my EM5 - the controls simply did not cater for my larger hands, even with assorted grips and modifications. The pick of the litter for ergonomics is undoubtedly the Pentax K5. "king of comfort" I used to call it, Pentax really know how to have buttons laid out well. They even give u43 lenses a run for their money with small, pancake primes. It's a shame they are so overlooked most of the time. Back to the debate at hand and I must admit, even being a full frame shooter, for most casual hobbyist the u43 ecosystem more than suffices. We aren't all pixel peepers and we all don't print big. In reality, a lot of us simply post of to blogs or print 6x9's to palm off to family and friends. It's a fantastically lightweight system that can be adapted easily and quickly. It's grown in maturity and I'd love to give it another look into some time in the future.
ReplyDeleteLet's get a few things in perspective here - shooting in RAW, u43 will never surpass the dynamic range, colour fidelity, tonality, noise control and depth-of-field control that 35mm full frame sensors afford. I could go on to say medium format is another step up, but they simply don't possess the burst rate, continuous tracking that camera's like the D4s and 1Dx possess. It's the wonderful compromise of sensor size and reliable performance. People may potty mouth DxO, but in the end (for the majority) their numbers don't lie. If you aim to print rather large, view at 100% on screen or print, and want high tonal accuracy and dynamic range - u43 still lacks the punch of FF sensors. The above images are SUBLIME, but you can just tell they lack the extra punch a well chosen FF body and lens combo would produce.
It's all apples and oranges, you sacrifice weight to haul this around. But like I read from a well established professional photographer; you're paid to get the shot, you're not paid to pack light and leave behind the gear that may get you the money shot.
I really hope u43 keeps flourishing, it's pushing the other manufacturers to advance their research and development. Beware the dark horse in Sony though, they have satisfactory market share and if they manage to mature their APS-C NEX and A7 FF systems, the "u43 is lighter" debate is going to slowly erode away. I handled a A6000 and a zeiss zoom combo in Tokyo a month back and was amazed..that thing tracked focus like my old D3!
Now here is the thing. Earlier in January, Ming Thein has an exhibition, he used medium format Hasselblad and OM-D E-M5. The images (about 40 of them) were printed large, really large, and half of the images were OM-D, the other half medium format. Guess what, no one could tell which images were taken from which medium. They all looked equally good. There goes the argument about medium format having the edge in printing large. Ming Thein even admits that for some shots, the OM-D clearly had the advantage, having used the 75mm F1.8 with super resolution it resolves. It is not just the number of megapixels that counts, but also the quality of each pixels resolved. You may get higher pixel count but it is meaningless if the pixel quality isnt there. There I was, amazed by the tiny micro 4/3 sensor in the E-M5, being placed side by side in large prints against Hasselblad.
DeleteMicro 4/3 is already there. And it is getting even better. People just refuse to see it, and accept it.
Here is the link to the exhibition, and I have blogged about it. http://robinwong.blogspot.com/2014/01/engineering-art-in-metal-exhibition-by.html
DeleteFor that matter, the D7100 and 70D aren't competitive with the D4s and 1Dx but they're also quite usable. That's where the real question is. Why buy either when micro Four-Thirds can create prints that are practically indistinguishable from their similarly-priced APS-C-laden bodies?
DeleteLike Christian, I have shot a lot of system. Currently have fx, aps-c, m43 and film. They all have their pros and cons.
DeleteIf battery life concern you the most, get DSLR.
If DSLR is too heavy for you, get mirrorless or smaller DSLR.
If you want bokeh, get dslr or other fx mirrorless.
If you want to buy a lot of lenses and have access to some good cheap lenses, DSLR.
Another problem with m43 system is price. From B&H in USD$
E-M5 $799 + Oly 12-40mm f2.8 $899, Oly 25mm $399, Oly 75mm $799 = $2,897
E-M1 $1,299 + Oly 12-40mm f2.8 $899, Oly 25mm $399, Oly 75mm $799 = $3,397
On the other corner,
D610 (fx) & 24-85mm VR combo $2396, Nikon 50mm 1.8G $196, Nikon 85mm 1.8G $396 = $2,988
D7100 (dx) $1,096, Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 $519, Nikon 35mm 1.8G $196, Nikon 85mm 1.8G $396 = $2,207
If you think bokeh is overrated, just get a point and shoot for $400 and save $2300 :)
I'd like to disagree with Sakamoto, respectfully of course. The D7100 is more than capable of being compared to a D4s. I'd even say it will trump a 1Dx in certain circumstances. Canon sensors are behind Nikon's current generation. The D7100 is AA filter-less, at 24mp it's resolving power is quite high when equipped with the right glass. It's just as sharp in the right light compared to a D600/D800 as well. The D4s is an incredible low-light performer though, and I don't see it being trumped comprehensively until the Sony A7s comes out.
DeleteRobin, the exhibition photo's are amazing. That no one was able to pick the camera used is even a finer testament to his ability. Saying that, like he even said in his most recent article - he has a consistent style. Same processing, same composition, etc. At a themed exhibition I doubt anyone, except for the discerning shooter, to tell them apart. This has more to say about his shooting style than the equipment used. I respectfully disagree in regards to the statement regarding printing. You can't escape physics - a 40MP + MF camera used at it's base ISO's will ALWAYS print better than and u43. You may not see it standing 2 or 3 metres away, but go closer - examine the photo, all the tonal gradations, the quality of the micro-contrast; MF will always, always hold the edge. I've seen plenty of MF prints and they are simply THAT much better than anything else I have seen.
Ming is a hell of a photographer, but there is a reason he keeps going back to FF or APS-C (Ricoh GR) camera's for the majority of his print work - the quality has a tangible difference. Sure the 75mm 1.8 is great, I had one loaned to me for over a month. At that price and focal length it better be good for a prime. As good as it is though, I'd still pick the Zeiss 135 over it any day and pay the weight penalty. It's possibly the finest portrait lens ever made.
u43 is definitely here. A terrific ecosystem, with great bodies and notable advantages. With that though comes questionable pricing, continues tracking that still lacks, and image quality, whilst terrific, is still dwarfed by it's big brothers. Choose whatever system appeals to you most, in the end it's the photo in front of you that counts most.
I hope the above statement don't come across too harshly, I simply want to weigh in on the debate having used most formats and now settling on FF. I don't like burying myself in numbers, and in the end I get my butt out the door and shoot - but tangible numbers and measurements talk the talk and hyperbole from fanboys on rumor sites (im looking at you 43rumors and sonyalpharumors) mean nothing. u43 has bridged the gap so closely to APS-C now, Panasonic and Olympus should be applauded. Numbers do talk though and there is still a quantifiable difference from u43 to FF regarding image quality. It's up to the photographer in the end, and sure as hell i've seen A LOT of bad photo's from n00bs jumping on the FF-wagon.
Deletep.s. Before anyone shoults "FF fanboy" i'll say my second favorite camera i've ever used is a GF1. The Sony RX1 steals the number one spot, I see it as the spiritual successor of what I saw in the GF1 and 20mm lens. Light, compact, great build, no-bullshit about it and a joy to use everytime I pick it up.
".........manage to mature their APS-C NEX and A7 FF systems, the "u43 is lighter" debate is going to slowly erode away."
DeleteA7 FF system would, eventually, save half the size and weight of the camera ONLY. The FF lenses will still remain as they are now (eventually, huge). So, talking about a system, one going for A7 FF will only save on the body size. With u43 system you save on both (body and lenses), so my guess is the u43 system is going to always be lighter.
I think we're at the point where it's difficult to get a 'bad' camera. I can't think of a sensor size above point-n-shoot sensors that can't produce decent pictures. But everyone feels they need to absolute best sensor to be able to take even good pictures. The question is: Do they?
ReplyDeleteWhen the 16MP Canon 1Ds MKII came out a lot of the reviews commented that it produced 'medium format' quality images. I had a 1Ds MKII and it truly was a fine camera, as was the 5D. I have to say the E-M5 gave the 1Ds MKII a run for it's money and surpassed it at higher ISO's. I currently shoot with a 1Dx and E-M5's. The 1Dx does produce better images once the ISO really gets ramped up. But for most of the time, it's pretty difficult to tell the two apart. That's outstanding for a camera the size of the E-M5.
I don't think I'm in the minority when I appreciate the additional DoF either. I've lost so many great pictures when shooting full frame and just didn't have enough DoF to cover focussing errors or when the subject just moved a tad.
As shown on this site, m43 is capable of producing outstanding images, and sensor technology has gotten us to the point where, in all honesty, it doesn't matter what camera you use for 99.99% of the time. The percentage is probably even higher for non-pro's. If you can't take a good picture with m43/APS-C then going full frame isn't going to help.
It is a surprise coming from a 1DX user, saying you can't tell the difference unless you go much higher ISO! That is indeed amazing.
DeleteYou are right about it does not matter which camera to use, for 99.99% of the time!
It would be so much nicer if folks just look at an image--online or print--and judge it for its image merits (or demerits) and importantly whether it pleases them or not aesthetically instead of wondering what gear produced it. The latter are "gear heads" plain and simple. Today gear of all sensor and/or film sizes is so high quality that the overall IQ depends much more on the human pressing the shutter than on the shutter, sensor, lens, etc. Plus, there is sooooo much choice in gear!
ReplyDeleteAgree with you Ulfie, that it is more important to look at the images, and see the content rather than admiring the pixels and technicalities. You are also right about how most modern cameras are actually so good that it is hard to find fault in them.
DeleteRobin, I must say, and I'm sure many will agree with me, that your blog atmosphere, images and responses are so upbeat and positive. Even though you now represent Olympus ("Oly" to me as an E-PL1 user), you don't "push" their products by bad-mouthing other gear companies. In other words, it's always a pleasure to read your articles and see you images. Keep up the exemplary work! ulfie (FYI, "ulfie" comes from the film Amadeus in which Mozart's wife affectionately calls him "Ulfie," short for Ulfgand or Wolfgang, his former first name.)
DeleteHi Ulfie,
DeleteWhat is there to badmouth? I believe any camera these days are very capable and can deliver great results. Photography has always been capturing photographs and enjoying the shooting process, and I sure hope to promote that through my blog, in whatever small ways I can.
E-PL1 is a great camera! I have used it extensively and I still think it can do very well today.
HI ROBIN! loving all ur coverage on e-m10 olympus. i was wondering. have u used the video function on this camera? do you think it's decent to shoot videos with.. not just for personal but maybe like semi professional video work :)
ReplyDeleteDear E,
DeleteI have briefly used the video recording here: http://robinwong.blogspot.com/2014/02/olympus-om-d-e-m10-review-part-2-high.html
I am a photographer and I rarely use video functions. I may not be the best person to answer your questions. If you ask me if the video is good enough, then I say yes, but that is just for me.
Very interesting article and points brought up in the comment section. I agree with the lack of mp for effective enlargements over 22 inches. Such a situation comprises 10% of my photographic purposes with the m43 (street, everydaylife, spontaneous, travel photography) and honestly I feel ready to adopt that line of thought (16mp instead of 20+mp) thanks to the axis-based system implemented in the em10 that almost guarantees sharp photos in any light with the appropriate prime lens. I also believe most of my non-photography-enthusiast clients care more about the content rather than the clinical quality of the result.
ReplyDeleteThe line has been stuck on 16mp since 2011. While the sensors have been refined over and over, there is this anxiety of low number that lurks around when viewing images up close (which most of people don't). Had digital artifacts behave better or be better suppressed, enlarging the image above its native size could be a more enjoyable experience. (Tried enlarging my d7000 16mp file, cropped to fit a 50x40 inche print didn't achieve optimal results but the series got saved by the content). I could see this evolve in two ways: a higher quality of 16mp or an increase to 18-20mp (the axis-based stabilisation helps a lot since minor camera shakes can render images unsharp above 20mp)
The viewing platform influences the appreciation of m43 a lot too. Last week I viewed images on this site on an apple 27inch. While the images are no doubt very sharp and crisp, they had many artifacts in the highlight and shadow roll-offs not found in the "fullframe cameras" as well as the lack of texture details 3200ISO+ images. Now I'm back on my 15inch retina display and the image defects have disappeared.
I think we have to consciously define the benefits and boundaries of the system instead of comparing it to what it's supposed to replace. Telling hero stories of people using this and achieving ultimate satisfaction in usability and results is much better.
I trust the system will evolve and refine they way it believes it should.
Thanks for the information Robin. What I have been trying to determine regarding the image quality of the four-thirds is how does the print quality compare to an APS-C sensor? Do you have any thoughts on this? Do you loose any print quality when going from an APS-C to a four-thirds?
ReplyDelete