Latest on mirrorless cameras (Page 8): And good quality lenses trump low quality lenses! The discussion on this thread seems to have devolved to the impact of sensors. Lens quality...

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

CatMarley wrote:

They are equal only in the eyes of the 4/3 aficianados! In the world of physics larger sensors trump smaller sensors.

And good quality lenses trump low quality lenses! The discussion on this thread seems to have devolved to the impact of sensors. Lens quality trumps sensor size every time!!

bwa

lightyear

Switching from a DSLR to a mirrorless camera immediately creates a different approach: using a viewfinder ( which you are accustomed to on the DSLR) to the mirrorless camera method - large rear lcdl screen or (better) a camera with a viewfinder AND a rear screen. The controls, program, switches will be very different, and usually the buttons, etc. will be smaller. I did this recently and discovered that some of the mirrorless cameras were very difficult for my vision and the buttons on some wee harder to use than others. Look at and try various models and brands. I think the most versatile is one with a viewfinder, rear lcd screen, and zoom lens.

CatMarley Loc: North Carolina

Delderby wrote:

The second sentence of your posted statement is correct - it merely needs sensibly qualifying to have sensible meaning. The first sentence is rubbish.

From their pejoratives you shall know them! I can tell from your "rubbish" comment which camera you own.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

CatMarley wrote:

From their pejoratives you shall know them! I can tell from your "rubbish" comment which camera you own.

It is still rubbish.

CatMarley Loc: North Carolina

davyboy wrote:

Actually if you compare on the charts the canon crop sensor is very slightly larger than m4/3 and the Nikon sensor slightly larger then the canon not much significant difference in size or photo quality

I did grasp some mathematics when I went through my formal education. The difference in square mm is 225 : 329 (Canon): 370(Nikon) . While there may not be a significant difference to the eye at normal viewing size, these numbers ARE significantly different in size! And the difference between 4/3 and APSC can have a significant impact when editing.

CatMarley Loc: North Carolina

Delderby wrote:

It is still rubbish.

And you are still rude.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

CatMarley wrote:

And you are still rude.

Here is another comparison for you.

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2015/02/23/mirrorless-battle-micro-43-vs-aps-c-vs-full-frame/

tdekany Loc: Oregon

CatMarley wrote:

I did grasp some mathematics when I went through my formal education. The difference in square mm is 225 : 329 (Canon): 370(Nikon) . While there may not be a significant difference to the eye at normal viewing size, these numbers ARE significantly different in size! And the difference between 4/3 and APSC can have a significant impact when editing.

Can I ask you why you are not using your Nikon camera anymore?

tdekany Loc: Oregon

CatMarley wrote:

From their pejoratives you shall know them! I can tell from your "rubbish" comment which camera you own.

And the rest of us can tell what you own. Can we keep narcissism out of the thread? Your opinion doesn’t matter anymore than another one’s. You prefer Fuji. Others prefer FF. Some others use Medium Format, because to them all smaller sensors are inferior.

The truth is that you will see work of art with all sensor types and you will also see snapshots, no matter the format.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

davyboy wrote:

Actually if you compare on the charts the canon crop sensor is very slightly larger than m4/3 and the Nikon sensor slightly larger then the canon not much significant difference in size or photo quality

One thing that really affects real world results is aspect ratio.

Crop a 3:2 image to 5:4, and you discard at least 16.7% of it.

Crop a 4:3 image to 5:4, and you lose at least 6.7% of it.

So for 8x10 prints, a 20 MP 3:2 image becomes at best a 16.67 MP image. A 4:3 20 MP image cropped to 8x10 becomes at best an 18.67 MP image... more data than you get from 3:2!

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

CatMarley wrote:

I did grasp some mathematics when I went through my formal education. The difference in square mm is 225 : 329 (Canon): 370(Nikon) . While there may not be a significant difference to the eye at normal viewing size, these numbers ARE significantly different in size! And the difference between 4/3 and APSC can have a significant impact when editing.

Thanks I agree your right😮

le boecere

burkphoto wrote:

Micro 4/3 is not the equal of APS-C. It is slightly inferior. Actually, APS-C is right in the middle between full frame and Micro 4/3 as far as image quality. All are quite good... better than most 35mm films if you know what you are doing!

Now, here is a rational answer from a dependably sensible and knowledgeable UHH contributor.

And I find this to be a very interesting remark worth (me) committing to memory: "....better than most 35mm films if you know what you are doing!"

THANKS, BILL!

_Van

le boecere

burkphoto wrote:

One thing that really affects real world results is aspect ratio.

Crop a 3:2 image to 5:4, and you discard at least 16.7% of it.

Crop a 4:3 image to 5:4, and you lose at least 6.7% of it.

So for 8x10 prints, a 20 MP 3:2 image becomes at best a 16.67 MP image. A 4:3 20 MP image cropped to 8x10 becomes at best an 18.67 MP image... more data than you get from 3:2!

For me, VERY interesting information. Thanks, again!

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

CatMarley wrote:

And you are still rude.

If truth is rude, then so be it.

AFPhoto Loc: Jamestown, RI, USA

By the time this thread is over we may be all wishing the OP a happy 74th birthday and everyone will still believe what the believe now.