Considering a switch from Full frame DSLR to mirrorless, have a few questions

[Mirrorless Journey]

You would be surprised about the high ISO performance of the last micro 4/3 cameras. This is a shot at 5000 ISO (No noise reduction applied). Sure, this is not the ISO performances of the new D750 but it is as good or even better than what my 5D Mark II was outputting. This was taken with the Panasonic GH4.

 

[Derrel]

Since you mentioned three specific cameras, I figured I would enter them into the DxO Mark comparison page and generate some actual test result numbers.

Nikon D750 versus Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 versus Canon EOS 5D Mark II - Side by side camera comparison - DxOMark

Nikon D750
Overall, 93; Color Depth 24.8 bits;Dynamic Range 14.5 EV, Low Light ISO 2956.

Canon 5D Mark II
Overall, 79; Color Depth 23.7 bits;Dynamic Range 11.9 EV, Low Light ISO 1815.

Panasonic Lumix GH4
Overall, 74; Color Depth 23.2 bits;Dynamic Range 12.8 EV, Low Light ISO 791.

 

[Mirrorless Journey]

I never relied on DxOMark. I prefer to go shoot with the camera and look at what I get in different places/times/lighting conditions and make up my mind with the results instead of shooting a piece of paper in a controlled environment. Real life shooting >>>>>> DxOMark in my book. Sorry.

 

[goodguy]

I never relied on DxOMark. I prefer to go shoot with the camera and look at what I get in different places/times/lighting conditions and make up my mind with the results instead of shooting a piece of paper in a controlled environment. Real life shooting >>>>>> DxOMark in my book. Sorry.

There is no doubt micro 4/3 cameras are very capable cameras, I saw pictures taken with them in different ISO settings and was very impressed.
If somebody wants to use micro 4/3 then that perfectly fine but no matter how you look at it they will not work as well as full frame in low light and we are talking about a big advantage to full frame.
I just upgraded from a VERY capable crop sensor camera to the D750 and the difference is nothing short of amazing.
If for a micro 4/3 user the camera fulfill all his/her needs then that's perfect, for me today I can tell you full frame is a minimum I don't see going down from any time soon.
Low light performance is something which for me is a must, don't want to make a compromise about it.
I read a small reply from a GH4 user and while he stated he loves his camera he also said he tries not to go above 2000 ISO in low light situations.

 

[Derrel]

I never relied on DxOMark. I prefer to go shoot with the camera and look at what I get in different places/times/lighting conditions and make up my mind with the results instead of shooting a piece of paper in a controlled environment. Real life shooting >>>>>> DxOMark in my book. Sorry.

I have checked every single camera I have owned against DxO Mark's tests; their results are THE MOST ACCURATE characterization of actual performance that I could possibly imagine. Like the crappy performance of the Nikon D70; the very wide DR but weak high ISO performance of the Fuji S5 Pro; the beautiful color and wide Dynamic range of the D3x; the absolutely chitty sensor in the D2x; the good, solid, yet outdated sensor in the Canon 5D classic. I've owned all those cameras, and the DxO Mark data are exceedingly accurate in showing the strengths and weaknesses of all those cameras.

Your claims about astounding ISO performance in the GH4 are pretty strong claims, but you're right, it pales in comparison to the D750. When somebody joins a forum and picks a name like "Mirrorless Journey", I would naturally expect some type of non-objective glorification of the choice that user has made. But the rest of the world wants objective data,and deserves an unbiased viewpoint regarding boasts and wild, generalized claims. Data arrived at by way of scientific tests, with objective results is what DxO mark provides about the three cameras you singled out by name. I am familiar with people trying to justify their purchasing decisions in on-line forums, but the data are what they are, and your claims seem to be out of line with the data. Trying to cast doubt on DxO Mark's data is a familiar tactic. I've seen that before, but as I said, I've looked at the cameras I have owned and shot, and the data seem exceptionally indicative of the weaknesses and strengths of each camera I've used.

 

[Scatterbrained]

You would be surprised about the high ISO performance of the last micro 4/3 cameras. This is a shot at 5000 ISO (No noise reduction applied). Sure, this is not the ISO performances of the new D750 but it is as good or even better than what my 5D Mark II was outputting. This was taken with the Panasonic GH4.

The problem with shooting under uncontrolled conditions is that you can't be sure of the validity outcome. For example, shooting at iso 6400 in the middle of the night outside is going to render a whole lot more noise than shooting at iso 6400 in the afternoon. Shooting at high iso because there is no light vs shooting at high iso because you need a high shutterspeed are two different things. That's why controlled testing matters.

 

[The_Traveler]

Too much of this argument is like comparing running shoes to fishing boots; the strength for either one is totally dependent on the primary use and requirements.

I would love to shoot full frame if the camera/lens were light and small and thus maneuverable - and the high iso performance would be just an added plus.

 

[SnappingShark]

I am not a professional.
I do not print out HUGE prints.
I shoot photographs for my own enjoyment, and to capture moments of my life and/or those around me.

I have an issue with lifting heavy stuff on one of my arms - and so for me the m43 system is perfect, and in fact, I think my photography has improved since I made the switch! (Although of course, that is questionable heh).
I would like to think of full frame vs crop vs m43 like cell phones.
full frame = iphone 6+ (big, does everything blah blah blah)
crop = iphone 6 (just not as impressive as the 6+)
m43 = android note 4 (big, but you don't notice cos its light, yet so customizable).

anyhoo - I love my m43 system!

 

[sashbar]

The digital camera choice is much wider these days than it was even 5 years ago, there are different types of camera now capable of serious IQ.

Not long ago you had a DSLR that was a "serious" camera and some amateurs bridge camera as a back up: travel, family snapshots etc. but really it was not a competitor to your DSLR.

Now we have different types of cameras that can compete or be preferable to DSLR in some situations. They all can be considered as "first choice" cameras depending on you specific needs and the kind of photography, since they all have passed that threshold where the IQ is professionally accepted.

So I think we have passed that stage where photographers had one main camera, and it was a DSLR. These days I think a dedicated hobbyist may have three cameras that together can meet his demands completely. Hey even AFP/Getty pros are being given a little Ricoh as a back up.

The best, versatile package for me now would be Ricoh GR, FUJI X-T1 and Nikon D750. Each of these cameras is capable of stunning, professional image quality and each has its unique strengths. Each has all the controls and customisation options you need. Each was made for serious photography. I have got two of them and probably will add the third one later, when I sell my DX Nikon stuff.

What stops me now from buying D750 is the suspicious that it will not be used too often because in my view high ISO (above 12800) is overrated, simply because it is not needed often. ISO 6400 is absolutely a working one now with X-T1, night city shots come up very good even with SOOC JPEGS with no pp, and this is enough for my photography.

Interestingly, my perception of different cameras has shifted to the point where I regard X -T1 as a universal Jack-of-all-trade camera that will be good in 80% of the time, whereas the little GR and the big (do not laugh) D750 are in fact more specialised cameras that are needed for those 20%. (Well, maybe Ricoh is used more often since it is with me almost all the time. )

I think it will be a common trend, with mirrorless getting better and better, DSLRs will be shifted to a specialised camera niche. Not soon, but eventually. DX though is doomed I think. I realised it after shooting with little Ricoh and X-T1. Both give me better IQ than DX Nikon glass.

 

[goodguy]

You would be surprised about the high ISO performance of the last micro 4/3 cameras. This is a shot at 5000 ISO (No noise reduction applied). Sure, this is not the ISO performances of the new D750 but it is as good or even better than what my 5D Mark II was outputting. This was taken with the Panasonic GH4.

Micro 4/3 are great sensors but there is one physical fact and that's a FF sensor collects 4 times more light then micro 4/3 and there is no way to go around that so getting a micro 4/3 is a compromise compared to FF which has its drawback like much bigger and heavier overall system....MUCH!!!
If weight and size is an issue then micro 4/3 is an excellent way to go but if you like me and you willing to "schlep" your equipment then FF is an obvious winner for stills photography.

 

[sashbar]

You would be surprised about the high ISO performance of the last micro 4/3 cameras. This is a shot at 5000 ISO (No noise reduction applied). Sure, this is not the ISO performances of the new D750 but it is as good or even better than what my 5D Mark II was outputting. This was taken with the Panasonic GH4.

Micro 4/3 are great sensors but there is one physical fact and that's a FF sensor collects 4 times more light then micro 4/3 and there is no way to go around that so getting a micro 4/3 is a compromise compared to FF which has its drawback like much bigger and heavier overall system....MUCH!!!
If weight and size is an issue then micro 4/3 is an excellent way to go but if you like me and you willing to "schlep" your equipment then FF is an obvious winner for stills photography.

Where did you get that idea of 4 times more light for a FF sensor? If it gets 4 times more light with the same scene, it means the image is overexposed by 4 stops

It does not work like that in real life. In real life an APS-C and even more so 4/3 camera can use a wider aperture for the same shot, simply because of a deeper DoF. Which allows for lower ISO than FF for the same shot.

With a FF camera you often need to step down the aperture, because the DoF is too shallow for many shots and then crack up the ISO to compensate for that Yes, high ISO performance is great with FF, but 4/3 sensors do not need that ISO for the same shot in the first place.

So there is an obvious way around that.
As I said FF high ISO is often overrated .

 

[Gary A.]

You would be surprised about the high ISO performance of the last micro 4/3 cameras. This is a shot at 5000 ISO (No noise reduction applied). Sure, this is not the ISO performances of the new D750 but it is as good or even better than what my 5D Mark II was outputting. This was taken with the Panasonic GH4.

Micro 4/3 are great sensors but there is one physical fact and that's a FF sensor collects 4 times more light then micro 4/3 and there is no way to go around that so getting a micro 4/3 is a compromise compared to FF which has its drawback like much bigger and heavier overall system....MUCH!!!
If weight and size is an issue then micro 4/3 is an excellent way to go but if you like me and you willing to "schlep" your equipment then FF is an obvious winner for stills photography.

Yes, a FF gathers 4x more light than a MFT sensor ... that's because it is 4x larger. Using identical settings on a FF, a APS-C and a MFT sensor .. the same amount of light will be hitting each pixel. It is the aperture and shutter speed which controls light not the sensor.

 

[sashbar]

You would be surprised about the high ISO performance of the last micro 4/3 cameras. This is a shot at 5000 ISO (No noise reduction applied). Sure, this is not the ISO performances of the new D750 but it is as good or even better than what my 5D Mark II was outputting. This was taken with the Panasonic GH4.

Micro 4/3 are great sensors but there is one physical fact and that's a FF sensor collects 4 times more light then micro 4/3 and there is no way to go around that so getting a micro 4/3 is a compromise compared to FF which has its drawback like much bigger and heavier overall system....MUCH!!!
If weight and size is an issue then micro 4/3 is an excellent way to go but if you like me and you willing to "schlep" your equipment then FF is an obvious winner for stills photography.

Yes, a FF gathers 4x more light than a MFT sensor ... that's because it is 4x larger. Using identical settings on a FF, a APS-C and a MFT sensor .. the same amount of light will be hitting each pixel. It is the aperture and shutter speed which controls light not the sensor.

You can also put it this way:
Let's say you shoot a particular scene with both 4/3 and FF and you want a particular DoF and shutter speed (surprise,surprise)
With 4/3, let's say, you are using 1.2 aperture and 1/100 shutter speed
With FF camera, for the same scene you keep the same shutter speed, but need to stop down the aperture, because otherwise DoF will be way too shallow. So you stop it down by two stops compared to 4/3.
Strictly speaking that means FOR THE SAME SHOT there will be 4 TIMES LESS light on the the each sq mm of FF sensor than it was with 4//3.

 

[goodguy]

You would be surprised about the high ISO performance of the last micro 4/3 cameras. This is a shot at 5000 ISO (No noise reduction applied). Sure, this is not the ISO performances of the new D750 but it is as good or even better than what my 5D Mark II was outputting. This was taken with the Panasonic GH4.

Micro 4/3 are great sensors but there is one physical fact and that's a FF sensor collects 4 times more light then micro 4/3 and there is no way to go around that so getting a micro 4/3 is a compromise compared to FF which has its drawback like much bigger and heavier overall system....MUCH!!!
If weight and size is an issue then micro 4/3 is an excellent way to go but if you like me and you willing to "schlep" your equipment then FF is an obvious winner for stills photography.

Where did you get that idea of 4 times more light for a FF sensor? If it gets 4 times more light with the same scene, it means the image is overexposed by 4 stops

It does not work like that in real life. In real life an APS-C and even more so 4/3 camera can use a wider aperture for the same shot, simply because of a deeper DoF. Which allows for lower ISO than FF for the same shot.

With a FF camera you often need to step down the aperture, because the DoF is too shallow for many shots and then crack up the ISO to compensate for that Yes, high ISO performance is great with FF, but 4/3 sensors do not need that ISO for the same shot in the first place.

So there is an obvious way around that.
As I said FF high ISO is often overrated .

My info about MFT takes 1/4 the light then FF I got from this interesting video



I will not get into the need to close aperture to get more DOF on FF as I am not a scientist and I think this is much more complex but I can share with you my personal experience which might have value or might not, for me it does so you may accept it or not.
My old D7100 was a great camera and most of my shots came out nice and sharp but I tried to get them not in f2.8 as it might come from time to time a weee bit soft.
Now with my FF or FX I can shoot at f2.8 and honestly I am still waiting to find ONE picture that isn't in focus.
AF system on the D750 is much more advanced and my personal skills keep improving so those might be the main reasons for my sharp results but the fact is that I can shoot at f2.8 all day long if I want.

Bottom line I will be the last person on this planet to disrespect MFT, I saw too many results and too many pictures of these systems to know they are VERY good but for me I want the added low light performance and all the advantages FF is giving.
I am sure Nikon and Canon in the future will come out with FF mirrorless which will replace their wonderful DSLRs and as long as their cameras will work with my DSLR lenses I will be right there with my visa in hand.

 

[goodguy]

You would be surprised about the high ISO performance of the last micro 4/3 cameras. This is a shot at 5000 ISO (No noise reduction applied). Sure, this is not the ISO performances of the new D750 but it is as good or even better than what my 5D Mark II was outputting. This was taken with the Panasonic GH4.

Micro 4/3 are great sensors but there is one physical fact and that's a FF sensor collects 4 times more light then micro 4/3 and there is no way to go around that so getting a micro 4/3 is a compromise compared to FF which has its drawback like much bigger and heavier overall system....MUCH!!!
If weight and size is an issue then micro 4/3 is an excellent way to go but if you like me and you willing to "schlep" your equipment then FF is an obvious winner for stills photography.

Yes, a FF gathers 4x more light than a MFT sensor ... that's because it is 4x larger. Using identical settings on a FF, a APS-C and a MFT sensor .. the same amount of light will be hitting each pixel. It is the aperture and shutter speed which controls light not the sensor.

Check my replay with Tony's video, if you disagree with his video I am sure you can contact him and explain to him where he was wrong, to me it looks very simple.