High megapixels & m4/3

[thunderkyss]

Is it because of the advances in megapixel technology that allows the m4/3 sensors to produce images on par with APS-C sensors from a few years back?

My thinking may be flawed, but I was of the understanding that the APS-C was the minimum sized sensor capable of producing "professional" results.

It would make sense that a ton of megapixels on a m4/3 sensor would be able to produce the dynamic range of 6 mp of the D100 or even the full framed D1x.

 

[rexbobcat]

It's probably a combination of software enhancements and better sensor technology.

The D1X is also APS-C.

The first Nikon full frame I believe was the D3

 

[KmH]

Yep. The D3 was Nikon's first FX image sensor.

The 2.7 MP D1 was Nikon's first DSLR.

 

[kundalini]

megapixels, smegmapixels. Don't get caught up in the marketing hype.


Yes, that was a pun for those that knows.

 

[thunderkyss]

megapixels, smegmapixels. Don't get caught up in the marketing hype.


Yes, that was a pun for those that knows.

Well, my question is really about why the m4/3s systems are being seen as a capable alternative to the APS-C & full size sensors.

 

[usayit]

As a general... its a better blend of size, features, and quality.

But your question is more specific to sensor.... I think its simply that the technology is maturing enough that the playing field is being leveled fairly well. Olympus is already an established maker of high quality optics and Panasonic isn't too far behind. IMO, Panasonic delivering better zooms while Olympus really doing well with delivering quality primes.

 

[lonewolfsx]

I think M4/3 is cool as a carry around travel/fun setup, and the results (megapixels or not) are solid. The biggest issue really (besides noise performance, but that's an issue on APS-C as well, and even full frame to some degree) is the autofocus. Micro 4/3 is contrast detect only, and will never keep up with an SLR type system for sports or weddings and similar high-speed events. However, back in "the day" they did have a regular *not micro* 4/3 system that worked like a regular SLR and has phase detect AF. I believe they still make the Olympus E-3 or E-5 or whatever they are on now, and some of the full-size 4/3 optics are pretty incredible. There is a 70-200 equivalent that is f/2.0 instead of f/2.8!! That's pretty cool. DOF is still less because of the small sensor but the light is still there to keep the shutter speed up. These lenses can be used in micro 4/3 systems but will no longer pull off the autofocus speeds necessary for modern events. The Olympus E-5 or whatever their professional camera is... *quite* behind Canon/Nikon pro equipment. It's probably not even as good as a D300 or 7D.

 

[Garbz]

Well, my question is really about why the m4/3s systems are being seen as a capable alternative to the APS-C & full size sensors.

Well let me ask you a counter question. Two actually. Do you think they are capable? And what is your criteria for capable?

Are you after incredible depth of field? m4/3 isn't even remotely capable of that.
Are you after good picture quality? Well I know professionals who shoot with Olympus E5s. I also know the Olympus OM-D has a better sensor and takes better pictures too and there's people waiting on Olympus's next pro level SLR to include the OM-D sensor. Just because they aren't on par with the Nikon D4x doesn't make them incapable.
Are you after something you can fit in your pocket? Well don't get an SLR then

These lenses can be used in micro 4/3 systems but will no longer pull off the autofocus speeds necessary for modern events. The Olympus E-5 or whatever their professional camera is... *quite* behind Canon/Nikon pro equipment. It's probably not even as good as a D300 or 7D.

Citation needed on the focus system. Olympus's focus by wire lenses are incredibly fast, and the OM-D using them is likewise. There's not much between them and phasedetection in terms of speed, though I won't comment on their tracking ability since I've never had a chance to try them on a football field.
Also I'll also ask you to qualify in what regard the E5 isn't as good as Nikon's offerings. Image quality? Yeah I agree. However, in camera image stability is a godsend and works with all lenses (even my Nikon lenses my girlfriend often uses). But in one regard where the E5 leaves ALL Canon's and Nikon's professional bodies in the dust is with weather sealing. Here's a promotional video of someone dunking it into the ocean while recording video, and if you're that way inclined he takes it into the shower and videotapes himself. So again qualify in what way one camera is behind another.

 

[thunderkyss]

Well, my question is really about why the m4/3s systems are being seen as a capable alternative to the APS-C & full size sensors.

Well let me ask you a counter question. Two actually. Do you think they are capable? And what is your criteria for capable?

Are you after incredible depth of field? m4/3 isn't even remotely capable of that.
Are you after good picture quality? Well I know professionals who shoot with Olympus E5s. I also know the Olympus OM-D has a better sensor and takes better pictures too and there's people waiting on Olympus's next pro level SLR to include the OM-D sensor. Just because they aren't on par with the Nikon D4x doesn't make them incapable.
Are you after something you can fit in your pocket? Well don't get an SLR then

Yeah, I'm a total newb & have no idea what I want/need, much less what is capable. I'm just reading different stuff here & the net that has me questioning whether I should be investing in DSLR technology or should I be investing in the "new" stuff.

 

[Garbz]

Ahh ok. Well take a step back and decide what it is you want to take pictures of, and where, that'll dictate what you need. I said where because that often fits into the equation such as a large format camera on a tripod or a full frame DSLR and sturdy tripod is second to none when taking photos of landscapes but I'll be damned if I'm going to carry those through the Amazon. I'll have no space for food in my backpack

You want to take photos of people, try see if you can squeeze a full frame DSLR into your budget.
You want to take photos of small wildlife? Cropped factor cameras have very high resolutions and lighter lenses.
You want to take photos adhoc around the city or you go travelling every other day, a m4/3 camera may be your best bet.

Also you'll want to go and physically hold any camera you consider buying, don't just buy it blind. I love my camera but my girlfriend's small hands can barely reach the trigger finger. I on the flipside have trouble holding an OM-D which doesn't have the battery grip attached.

 

[lonewolfsx]

Citation needed on the focus system. Olympus's focus by wire lenses are incredibly fast, and the OM-D using them is likewise. There's not much between them and phasedetection in terms of speed, though I won't comment on their tracking ability since I've never had a chance to try them on a football field.
Also I'll also ask you to qualify in what regard the E5 isn't as good as Nikon's offerings. Image quality? Yeah I agree. However, in camera image stability is a godsend and works with all lenses (even my Nikon lenses my girlfriend often uses). But in one regard where the E5 leaves ALL Canon's and Nikon's professional bodies in the dust is with weather sealing. Here's a promotional video of someone dunking it into the ocean while recording video, and if you're that way inclined he takes it into the shower and videotapes himself. So again qualify in what way one camera is behind another.

Sorry, I didn't mean to rag on the E-5 or the E-system in general. It's a very capable system, just that particular model camera came out a while ago and is behind the times. Even the D300 I compared it to is "behind the times," but that doesn't mean it isn't a capable system. The E-5's sensor is undeniably inferior to a new high-level crop camera right now, that's all I meant. Just the technical aspects, not operational.

And I'm a huge fan of the OM-D. I REALLY want one, I think they are super cool. I have an OM-1 and while very cool, I never really use it because film is pretty expensive to process (especially transparency) and I've grown accustomed to being able to adjust ISO on the fly with digital. However, it definitely doesn't track as well as a phase-detect system and is difficult to use simply by the way the liveview/viewfinder is electronic and blacks out for... way to long... while chasing something moving quickly. I'm sure it will get better in the future, in theory I'd guess that an EVF could be better than OVF eventually as the shutter blackout or by using an electronic shutter could mean even lower blackout times than a 35mm mirror flipping up and down at high speeds.

But for now I still think contrast detect, even on the currently fantastic OM-D, can't beat phase detect in difficult situations. Easy example that is not sports: Wedding reception. I've taking a ridiculous number of pictures on the dancefloor and such at various weddings with my Nikon and it's usually good, but it even misses a few shots in certain circumstances. There's just not enough contrast on a person's face (the goal of focus here) on a dark reception area with constantly changing stage lights and such. Otherwise, I'd have bought something far smaller and more useful for "everyday shooting" than the D800 to use at weddings.

 

[BlairWright]

The Sony NEX-7 is an APS-C body and although I hate it due to the ergonomics and viewfinder we do have one and it produces some exceptional images, of course the Zeiss glass helps allot too. The nice thing is that you can carry an NEX anywhere without getting noticed.

 

[Village Idiot]

First, check this comparison out:
DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side

The OM-D is rated by DXOmark to be on par overall with the 5D. It fairs worse at high ISO performance, but has similar color depth and higher dynamic range. That's not a bad comparison for a sensor that's half the size of a full frame sensor. Comparing it against a modern D5200, you can see it's not rated as high. Now, if someone were to eyeball photos from a m43 camera and try to pick them out from a lineup of the three cameras compared, I doubt they could do it.

I think M4/3 is cool as a carry around travel/fun setup, and the results (megapixels or not) are solid. The biggest issue really (besides noise performance, but that's an issue on APS-C as well, and even full frame to some degree) is the autofocus. Micro 4/3 is contrast detect only, and will never keep up with an SLR type system for sports or weddings and similar high-speed events. However, back in "the day" they did have a regular *not micro* 4/3 system that worked like a regular SLR and has phase detect AF. I believe they still make the Olympus E-3 or E-5 or whatever they are on now, and some of the full-size 4/3 optics are pretty incredible. There is a 70-200 equivalent that is f/2.0 instead of f/2.8!! That's pretty cool. DOF is still less because of the small sensor but the light is still there to keep the shutter speed up. These lenses can be used in micro 4/3 systems but will no longer pull off the autofocus speeds necessary for modern events. The Olympus E-5 or whatever their professional camera is... *quite* behind Canon/Nikon pro equipment. It's probably not even as good as a D300 or 7D.

The noise performance on my OM-D is great. I can get highly usable shots at 3200 ISO. I dreaded shooting over 800 ISO with my Canon 30D. And as far as the AF is concerned, it's fast. It was even touted as the fastest AF on the planet. It may not be the most accurate when the lights go down, but speed is not an issue here. It certainly focuses faster than my 5D MKII so I wouldn't say it's "*quite*" behind higher end DSLRs. Unless you've actually used one and compared it, it's not really fair to compare it against the compeition.

Well, my question is really about why the m4/3s systems are being seen as a capable alternative to the APS-C & full size sensors.

Well let me ask you a counter question. Two actually. Do you think they are capable? And what is your criteria for capable?

Are you after incredible depth of field? m4/3 isn't even remotely capable of that.

I shot a few photos last weekend with my 45 f/1.8 and at f/3.5 I was getting only one of the subject's eyes in focus and the other was out of focus. At f/1.8, it would have been a very thing DOF. Of course, it's not as thing as a FF camera, but it's still capable with fast lenses and longer focal lengths.

Ahh ok. Well take a step back and decide what it is you want to take pictures of, and where, that'll dictate what you need. I said where because that often fits into the equation such as a large format camera on a tripod or a full frame DSLR and sturdy tripod is second to none when taking photos of landscapes but I'll be damned if I'm going to carry those through the Amazon. I'll have no space for food in my backpack

You want to take photos of people, try see if you can squeeze a full frame DSLR into your budget.
You want to take photos of small wildlife? Cropped factor cameras have very high resolutions and lighter lenses.
You want to take photos adhoc around the city or you go travelling every other day, a m4/3 camera may be your best bet.

Also you'll want to go and physically hold any camera you consider buying, don't just buy it blind. I love my camera but my girlfriend's small hands can barely reach the trigger finger. I on the flipside have trouble holding an OM-D which doesn't have the battery grip attached.

An OM-D with the right lenses would be more than capable of doing any of the above. It would be especially good for wildlife with the crop factor. You can get a zoom lens that's 300mm on the long end that gives you the equivalent FOV of a 600mm lens.

This is from Facebook, so the quality isn't the best, but this is the photo shot at f/3.5 with one eye in focus because of the shallow DOF

 

[Garbz]

Actually with the wildlife comment I agree with you more so. There's a facepalm moment there. m4/3 has a 2x crop factor, the Olympus lenses are marketed as equivalent such as a 100-400mm and are phenomenally sharp.

However I was talking about the ideal scenario. If you're a portrait photographer, then m4/3 is not ideal. Yes you can do it, but ultimately the name of the game is what the upper limit is. Very few people I know shoot f/1.2 or f/1.4 all the time, but they are thankful for the thin depth of field in portraiture when they need it.

 

[thunderkyss]

The noise performance on my OM-D is great. I can get highly usable shots at 3200 ISO. I dreaded shooting over 800 ISO with my Canon 30D. And as far as the AF is concerned, it's fast. It was even touted as the fastest AF on the planet. It may not be the most accurate when the lights go down, but speed is not an issue here. It certainly focuses faster than my 5D MKII so I wouldn't say it's "*quite*" behind higher end DSLRs. Unless you've actually used one and compared it, it's not really fair to compare it against the compeition.

That's good to know. I am already looking for better low light performance.

You want to take photos of people, try see if you can squeeze a full frame DSLR into your budget.
You want to take photos of small wildlife? Cropped factor cameras have very high resolutions and lighter lenses.
You want to take photos adhoc around the city or you go travelling every other day, a m4/3 camera may be your best bet.

An OM-D with the right lenses would be more than capable of doing any of the above. It would be especially good for wildlife with the crop factor. You can get a zoom lens that's 300mm on the long end that gives you the equivalent FOV of a 600mm lens.

This is from Facebook, so the quality isn't the best, but this is the photo shot at f/3.5 with one eye in focus because of the shallow DOF

So, I was under the impression that a big reason professionals used cameras with larger sensors, was that it allowed them to print their photographs larger than they would if they used cameras with smaller sensors.

My original question referred to this. My thinking, is that the bigger sensors allowed for higher pixel density. Where an APS-C sensor allowed a pixel a 5.3 megapixel photo to be printed at X size, with no pixelation and a given dynamic range, today's m4/3 sensors @ 16.1 megapixels can print a photo at X times 2 with no pixelation and similar if not superior dynamic range.