kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

There is more to the question. First, you are comparing apples to oranges, as APSC and MFT are different formats. That aside, the Sony sensor is far superior in dynamic range, color depth and low light response. So comparing an image shot with the Sony in APSC to the Olympus, these three qualities will be superior, although this will increase noise somewhat. However if you were to crop the Sony to MFT, you would have much less resolution than what you get with the Oly. You would still have better dynamic range and color depth, and an advantage in noise, but the latter much less than if shot with the full sensor, and considerably less resolution.

The short answer is that shooting with the Sony in APSC with appropriate lenses will give you a better image than shooting with the Olympus with its lenses, but you will probably only see a difference in situations of low light and high contrast.

Wasabi

Yes.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Theory isn't going to get you squat here. Run your own tests to find out!

The OM-1 is a 20MP sensor, not 24.

Set up a very sturdy tripod and put your sharpest lenses on the respective cameras. Photograph a large map or newspaper pinned to a wall. Compose the image in each viewfinder to maintain the same coverage/magnification. Make equivalent exposures at every aperture on the lens, so you can compare the sharpest image from each system. Perform a custom/manual/preset white balance on each system. Use a self timer to avoid vibration. Be careful to focus SHARPLY on the center of the frame.

The point is to test your SYSTEM and not just any one component part of it. It is point-LESS to speculate, calculate, or otherwise guess about performance. The only thing that counts is end results. So compare end results. I don't care what kind of sensor is in the camera. I care a lot about what it does! Is the SYSTEM good enough for what I need to do? Yes? Then I'm good to go!

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

The only thing you are missing is a bit of dynamic range and better low light performance, speaking in terms of the sensor. Of course many of the Sony FFs have more megapixels, but already at 20 you have respectable resolution if you don't crop too much. The place you will really see a difference is at high ISOs and noise in the shadows.

gwilliams6

Bebu,
The larger your camera's sensor, the larger the photosites, the more resultant megapixels, which allow for a better image and a higher resolution. High resolution is important to ensure that your images are high quality even when you blow up a photo to a larger size.

Larger Camera Sensors Handle High Megapixel Counts Better, With Less Noise. Camera sensor size and megapixel count go hand-in-hand. But a higher megapixel count is always better on a larger camera sensor than on a smaller one. A 50-megapixel full frame sensor will have larger pixels than a 50-megapixel APS-C sensor. As the pixels get smaller, the noise per pixel gets higher.

Skip the intro ad: https://expertphotography.com/camera-sensor-size/

Yes Bebu, my 61mp Sony A7RIV and 50mp Sony A1 need high resolving lenses to fully resolve those higher megapixel sensors. I had to get rid of some of my lower resolving lenses when I stepped up to higher megapixel cameras. Those lower resolving lenses were fine on lower megapixel cameras, but just couldn't resolve my higher megapixel sensors.

All my 12 fullframe E-mount lenses now are ones that can resolve those higher megapixel sensors.

Cheers and best to you.

gwilliams6

1

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Not a stupid question. The basic answer is the 42mp allows for a larger image and/or cropping. The pixel size does not change even if processed differently. Yes, the pixels are different between brands of cameras and will produce a similar signal. But the larger pixel will be able to capture more photons because of a larger surface area. This is the low light advantage of full frame. There will always be some differences between medium format all the way down to smartphone. But each medium is capable of capturing a good image. All you really need to worry about is does the medium you are shooting with meet your needs and requirements.

gwilliams6

In line with what Burkphoto and others have said , try the best of micro 4/3rds, APS-C and fullframe and see what image quality, noise, depth of field etc. suits your style and your photo needs

For me personally, I have tried and owned all three, and even a compact 1" sensor camera. They all have their advantages and disadvantages.

Personally for my professional work I prefer the higher resolution, greater detail, image quality, lower noise and shallower depth of field that I can get with my fullframe sensors. Specifically my current A7RIV, A1, A7SIII.

But that is not to say that other pros and hobbyists aren't totally happy using smaller sensor cameras, many are perfectly happy with other size sensors, and that is all good.

No one size fits all, LOL

Cheers and best to you all.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

The Sony sensor has 4 times the surface area as the OM one but less than twice the number of pixels. So, obviously, it has much less pixel density, or bigger pixels. The sensor density is unaffected by cropping.

However, if you are talking about the resulting photo blown up to the same size, the cropped Sony image has 18 MP and the OM has 24 MP in the same size PRINT! So it still has less density.

How that affects anything depends on lenses, distance to subject, etc.

fetzler Loc: North West PA

1. More pixels allows on to crop more or make larger prints. Unless you are making rather large prints all of your cameras are fine.

2. In general, smaller pixels give more noise than larger pixels. You can estimate the pixel size from the area of the sensor and the number of pixels on the sensor. From the pixel area you can determine the size of a square with that area.

3. The sensor technology and in camera software also determines the quality of the images. Here newer is better.

4. Experimenting with cameras to determine dynamic range (a function of ISO) and high ISO performance will give you a practical idea of the relative performance of your cameras.

Choosing the best sensor size can be related to you subject matter. For macro work, I really like using micro 4/3 for optical reasons. For detailed landscape photos and portraits with shallow depth of field FF might well be the choice. For detailed landscapes and reproduction of art works look to medium format.

Remember all modern cameras and many older cameras are capable of making a pleasant photograph of Grandma sitting on the porch.

petrochemist Loc: UK

Claiming both are in the crop sensor category suggests there is a need for a lesson on sensor size.
The difference between FF & APSC is very close to the difference between APSC & MFT (at least if it's not a Canon APSC).
The tiny Pentax Q with it's 5.7 crop factor is also in 'the crop sensor category'.
FF could equally be considered a crop of one of the larger formats, indeed when 135 film first came out it was referred to a miniature. It's only the long popularity of the 135 film format that makes FF a handy reference.

In each sensor size any pixels will be distributed evenly across the sensor. Using the APSC portion of a FF sensor will only use about half the pixels, using the MFT portion you'll use about a quarter...

Rileychas Loc: San Diego, California

I don't totally agree with the Sony has better color depth and dynamic range after using both. I bought the A7rii thinking that I would be blown away by the IQ, I was not. Granted it is very good but not head and shoulders above. I did do a little A-B shooting few months ago just for yucks using both the OM1 with 25mm 1.2 pro lens and Sony with the 50mm 1.8 (not an equal lens comparison but best I could do) Both cameras set on full auto (again, not ideal but was in hurry) Attached are the shots. I used the Sony to shoot the OM1 and vice versa. Again, this is not a rigorous test but I like the OM1 colors better.

(Download)


(Download)

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

I’ve been pleasantly surprised with its low light performance. It may not be as good as my Z7 but it’s easily 2 stops better than the E-M1X

therwol Loc: USA

Bump up the warmth and the exposure and they're a closer match. I did this in a matter of seconds in MS Photos.

(Download)

1CanonGuy Loc: Texas

Spot on Superflytnt