`
CO wrote:
......... 4/3 sensor can't match full
frame. DxO has tested .......
..... full frame .....
.... DXO .... tested ....
User ID wrote:
`
Maybe ... or maybe not.
BTW, pixels do not have any dimensions.
And you mention no other concern except
for some so-called "pixel size". So playing
at being Mr. Science is rather unbecoming
of you. OTOH, if you've tried the camera
and it did not suit you, I am sure it would
interest many of us to know why.
.
Camera makers seem to know their sensors and publish pixel pitch. Everyone on this forum knows the reason full frame cameras have lower digital noise and greater dynamic range than cropped sensor cameras is because of the larger pixels. Better light gathering ability results in a high signal to noise ratio and a wider dynamic range.
I wasn't saying anything about how the camera handles or operates, just that full frame sensors outperform small sensors. Why is it unbecoming of me to discuss technical subjects? I have a bachelor's degree in engineering. I took some heavy subjects in the curriculum.
Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mk.II
Nikon D5
tdekany wrote:
There are too many pros to list who use m4/3
To use DOF as an example is like claiming that mf is not good for landscape because of the obvious
I read a review on a medium format digital camera in a photography magazine. The reviewer did mention that it was more difficult to achieve a deep depth of field when out doing landscape photography.
wdross
Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado
CO wrote:
Its autofocus abilities seem to be leading the pack but the 4/3 sensor can't match full frame. DxO has tested the Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mk.II. I loaded that camera and the Nikon D850 into their sensor comparison tool. The D850 comes out ahead in every category - ISO sensitivity, signal to noise ratio, dynamic range, tonal range, color sensitivity.
You are right. The full frame sensor does do more and there are professional photographers that need that extra everything range all the time. But like Bill at Burkphoto has indicated, that tends to be the exception, not the rule. For him and a lot of others like myself, when we meet up with the exception, we will rent the equipment necessary to get the job done. For the majority of shooting, the 4/3rds sensor can produce an image just as good as any other sensor. The sensor is basically the same as on the E-M1mrII. But the way the data is collected and/or processed is different between the two. I personally do not understand how that can be, but that is the way they achieve the ND function and can be viewed real time. It is really neat watching a sharp water shot go from sharp to silky smooth.
wdross wrote:
You are right. The full frame sensor does do more and there are professional photographers that need that extra everything range all the time. But like Bill at Burkphoto has indicated, that tends to be the exception, not the rule. For him and a lot of others like myself, when we meet up with the exception, we will rent the equipment necessary to get the job done. For the majority of shooting, the 4/3rds sensor can produce an image just as good as any other sensor. The sensor is basically the same as on the E-M1mrII. But the way the data is collected and/or processed is different between the two. I personally do not understand how that can be, but that is the way they achieve the ND function and can be viewed real time. It is really neat watching a sharp water shot go from sharp to silky smooth.
You are right. The full frame sensor does do more ... (
show quote)
I wasn't trying to berate anyone's camera. I'm sure it's a very capable camera. The ND function sounds like a great feature. It sounds like it can give you the equivalent of using a variable ND filter on the lens but built into the camera's functionality. I've carried several fixed ND filters with me before when out to photograph waterfalls and streams. I have to estimate which would be the best one to use.
User ID wrote:
`
..... full frame .....
.... DXO .... tested ....
Less advanced in mental development than usual.
`
CO wrote:
.......
camera still has the Micro Four Thirds format
........ pixels are down to 3.36 microns........
BTW, pixels do not have any dimensions.
And you mention no other concern except
for some so-called "pixel size". So playing
at being Mr. Science is rather unbecoming
of you. OTOH, if you've tried the camera
and it did not suit you, I am sure it would
interest many of us to know why.
Have you tried the camera yet ?
.
wdross
Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado
CO wrote:
I wasn't trying to berate anyone's camera. I'm sure it's a very capable camera. The ND function sounds like a great feature. It sounds like it can give you the equivalent of using a variable ND filter on the lens but built into the camera's functionality. I've carried several fixed ND filters with me before when out to photograph waterfalls and streams. I have to estimate which would be the best one to use.
CO, I know that you were not berating anyone. There are different tools for different situations. For me, image stabilization means more than increased ISO. I am smart enough to know there are photographers for which just the opposite is true.
The in-camera ND is really neat. Olympus is not the first to do it so it will start showing up in other cameras. It really is neat watching the image form. I'm sure it will lose some of the uniqueness as it is introduced into the industry.
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
wdross wrote:
Mike's Camera held a launch event for the new E-M1X to be released Monday. The AI is absolutely amazing! Once it finds the targeted subject, it tracks it all over the viewfinder while changing size and shape as the target changes size and shape. It was interesting watching it track five cars at once changing size and shape for each car. If one does not choose which of the five cars is the target, it tends to choose the closest target and highlight it in green. Or one can choose any of the other four targets which the camera will exclusively follow even while showing the other four targets. We also tried the internal ND filtration. They helped us with the trying of Pro Capture; the capture of a colored ice cube producing a really great series of perfect splash in a wine glass. I have never shot that perfect in less than two seconds for the whole shoot - beginner's luck on how perfect the splash, the cube before entry all the way to past peak splash action. The handheld high resolution shots started showing the fibers of the target poster. I tried the image stabilization and thought I had lost my technique. It wasn't until I realized the video image of water around the rocks, to allow the water to be silky, wasn't shot with a tripod (the video image moved about). Once I figure that out, I examined the pictures and frames just passed the edge of the video screen. That showed I had just shot five straight successful 2 second handheld shots. It was even easier shooting them than with my E-M1mrII.
Anyone looking for a pro camera needs to look at this one. One of the pro attendees owned an E-M1mrII with vertical grip and a pro Canon with vertical grip. He indicated the slightly larger E-M1X size made it easier to hold than his E-M1mrII and was even easier to hold and much lighter than his Canon. He was thinking seriously of adding to his available tools.
Mike's Camera held a launch event for the new E-M1... (
show quote)
Sony, Nikon, and Canon will all have their own versions of this on new camera models coming out within the year.
They are making billboards with photos from iphones so sensor size arguments are moot. Unless of course you view your photos at the pixxel level on screen.
cochese wrote:
< snip > Unless of course you view your photos at the pixxel level on screen.
Isn't that what most of the sensor comparisons amount to?
I know that's what I did the first time I tried a MFT camera - pulled up files from a FF Nikon side by side and blew 'em up on the screen. Even took some tripod shots with both cameras - same field of view, using the cameras' AF and auto exposure - and compared 'em side by side on the screen. And as everybody knows, there was indeed lower noise and better apparent resolution in the FF files.
But then I printed some in my 8x8-inch B&W mode, which is how nearly all of my images end up actually being displayed. And frankly I couldn't see any difference.
Too new. Won’t start delivering until mid-March, last I heard.
Bipod wrote:
That sure sounds like a commercial.
Any professional sports photographers using the Olympus OM-D E-M1 X?
Or for that matter, the OM-D E-M1 Mk II? Names?
Why would anyone care what kind of camera a pro would use? I’m no pro and I could care less what they use. Just sayin
CO wrote:
Its autofocus abilities seem to be leading the pack but the 4/3 sensor can't match full frame. DxO has tested the Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mk.II. I loaded that camera and the Nikon D850 into their sensor comparison tool. The D850 comes out ahead in every category - ISO sensitivity, signal to noise ratio, dynamic range, tonal range, color sensitivity.
That doesn't count for much if the gear is too large and heavy to carry it where you want to go, if you don't dare use it in the rain, or if it can't capture the action you want to shoot.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.