Want a Confidence Booster? The best comparison video I have seen.
PhotoCamel: Your friendly photo community, with free discussion forums, digital photography reviews, photo sharing, galleries, downloads, blogs, photography contests, and prizes.
 

Go Back   PhotoCamel - Your Friendly Photography Forum > PhotoCamel Lounge > Photography Talk

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 1 Week Ago   #1
Bactrian
 
Robert Watcher's Avatar
 
Location: El Salvador / Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,809
CamelKarma: 14469189
Editing OK?: No
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Want a Confidence Booster? The best comparison video I have seen.

What I like about this video is the practical method used to compare a top end full frame sensor Canon 5d mark 4 with pro lens, against a top end micro 4/3 sized sensor Olympus E-M1 mark 2 with pro lens (1/2 the size, 1/2 the price and 1/4 the sensor size) based on one of the justifications for full frame - that you need that larger sensor to attain top quality big prints.

https://youtu.be/OGn3yPl59ZM


———

__________________
Members don't see ads in threads. Register for your free account today and become a member of PhotoCamel to open up the site's many benefits and features.
Robert Watcher is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #2
Photocamel Master
 
scoundrel1728's Avatar
 
Location: Oakland, CA, USA
Posts: 9,948
CamelKarma: 1469207
Editing OK?: Ask First
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: Want a Confidence Booster? The best comparison video I have seen.

This would be fine for the people who shoot outdoors in daylight, but what about the people who do a lot of shooting indoors where the light isn't so plentiful? For your street photography, that would be inside shops and such, where fast lenses and elevated ISO ratings are necessary, while at the same time remaining as inconspicuous as possible. For a situation like that, the choice of camera body may or may not be different from the one in the linked video.

I also watched some other videos, one in which the thesis was that full-frame cameras just weren't worth the trouble and inconvenience. Apparently he shot a lot in places where permits were required for commercial photography. When shooting with a full-frame camera, his photo session was frequently interrupted by someone wishing to see his permit, whereas he was less likely to be bothered when he used a smaller camera. His upper body also felt a lot better at the end of the day with the smaller camera and lenses, with more enthusiasm (and general quality) in his photography.

For my own case, I concluded at a very early age that photography would never be my main vocation, and it has held so far. A fair amount of my photography are (photographically) informal events taking place under residential room light - or, I should say, slightly modified darkness - or in churches with some overall lighting. Occasionally, such as our Christmas Eve service, they turn out the room lights altogether, making candles to be the main light. For this reason, all of my lenses, with two exceptions, open up to at least f/2.8, with some opening up to f/1.8 or f/1.4. I don't have a lot of money or a big income, so I don't have the latest thing in gear. I have also received an official complaint from the church where I normally shoot that my dSLR was too noisy. I have since put my dSLRs into retirement in favor of a Canon EOS M3, which has available an adapter model from Canon, plus some from third parties. The one I chose is not the least expensive but still a lot cheaper than Canon's version. I also got an electronic finder that now lives on the body's hot shoe. The finder has a sensor that can tell when something is near the eyepiece and shuts off the main LCD monitor, rerouting the signal to the EVF. I save a lot in battery power that way. The image quality is also at least as good as I got with the Canon 40D it replaced.
scoundrel1728 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #3
PhotoCamel Supporter DONATED
Administrator
 
Mr. Pickles's Avatar
 
Location: Old Folks Home
Posts: 23,185
CamelKarma: 6968994
Editing OK?: Ask First
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: Want a Confidence Booster? The best comparison video I have seen.

Robert and I (and others obviously) have and use m43 cameras, so in theory we don't see the FF advantage in what we do.

But that doesn't mean there isn't one that others need all the time, or part of the time. Can you see the differences on screen? yes and no. Can you see them in a big print? Probably more yes than no, but there are no's.

Got to use the best tool for the job and when that is the need, then FF is an improvement. But I'm one to argue counter to that and ask the FF die-hards who poo-poo on anything smaller, APS-C or m43 or others, why the heck they are FF shooters when MF is SO MUCH better as far as the image goes.... that is about the only way they will really get off the "image only" aspect and explain that MF is slower in shooting speed, is bigger, cost more, lens selection, has less features, etc etc.

To me, the m43 landscape is the best of every aspect from body size ranges to lens ranges to lens selection, to speed, to feature set in camera, to this and that and others. The images are perfectly fine when printed or seen, the vast majority of the time. ISO 6400 is grainy yeah, but so was ISO 6400 film, if you had any.
__________________
Olympus Full-time User
Olympus Passion Magazine
Idiot Savant AND trouble-maker...

PhotoCamel Helpful Info....
Posting Images Tutorial ... Posting and Critiquing? ... What's Camel Karma?
Mr. Pickles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #4
F1 Camel
 
jhawk1000's Avatar
 
Location: Kansas USA
Posts: 2,677
CamelKarma: 9058810
Editing OK?: Ask First
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: Want a Confidence Booster? The best comparison video I have seen.

I am a recent convert to Olympus M43. I still have a Nikon D800, D750 and an old D2x. I have a 300mm 2.8, 70-200 2.8. 28-75 2.8, and 50mm 1.8. I also have macro lenses, other 300mm lenses such as the Nikkor f4. I started out about 5 years ago with a Panasonic G5 with two kit lenses and never really seemed to mesh with the Panasonic. Before a trip to Ireland, I bought a Olympus OM D EM 10 and a Panasonic 25mm 1.7 and a Sigma 60mm 2.8 which were tried out on the trip. My verdict was that the Olympus was the favorite for me and I barely used the Nikons. My wife used the EM 10 to shoot football instead of the Nikon with the old 40-150mm kit lens. I then bought a Olympus OMD EM5 ii which led to a 40-150mm 2.8 Pro then an Olympus EM 1 and a 12-40mm 2.8. We are now in the process of cutting out the Nikon system with sale of lenses andthen at least one body. I see no need for the Nikon FF since the results from the Olympus are as good as or a little better for the things we do. Those things are Portraits at my wife's studio, Opera performances in our city concert hall, publicity photos for the Opera principal performers, sports photography (inside and outside with marginal lighting.) One thing that is often overlooked is the excellent Image stabilization in the Olympus cameras and the stabilization of the Panasonic higher end lenses.
jhawk1000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #5
Photocamel Master
 
scoundrel1728's Avatar
 
Location: Oakland, CA, USA
Posts: 9,948
CamelKarma: 1469207
Editing OK?: Ask First
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: Want a Confidence Booster? The best comparison video I have seen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Pickles View Post
The images [from my four-thirds system] are perfectly fine when printed or seen, the vast majority of the time. ISO 6400 is grainy yeah, but so was ISO 6400 film, if you had any.
I find that ISO 1600 on my Canon M3 is more than acceptable. I haven't had occasion to print an 8 x 10 or 8 x 12 yet from this camera, but I have on my 10 megapixel 40D and I do see some graininess, but it is better than acceptable. The pixel crops from my M3 are at least as good on my screen at 100% (display pixel per original image pixel) magnification on my screen as my 40D, so I now shoot routinely at ISO 1600 and, if the need were to arise, would shoot at ISO 3200 without worrying unduly. I haven't tried pushing things as high as ISO 6400 yet.

Back in my film days, I once tried a roll of Kodak 5251 - I think that was the number anyway - a film rated at ASA 1250. (Pre-ISO; this was back in 1966). It was kinda expensive for me and was harder to work with than my accustomed Tri-X, which even as barely a teenager I was buying in 100-foot spools, and my allowance had only recently been raised to two dollars per week. Those were the good (?) old days! It would be several years before I could afford an interchangeable-lens camera. By the time I could afford one, my interest in photography had gone dormant.

That said, in all that time, I never heard of anything that could be "pushed" higher than about ISO 1600, let alone a film rated at ISO 6400. On the other hand, I did see some shots from a Kodak DCS-620x (remember those?) pushed to the ISO 100,000 range, albeit with a fair amount of detail loss and other denoising artifacts - not that the 620x even at best had very good resolution at best by today's standards. Today, we have models that go up to ISO 25,000 - my own M3 goes up to 12,800, though I doubt that I would use it for anything serious at that rating.


__________________
Members don't see ads in threads. Register for your free account today and become a member of PhotoCamel to open up the site's many benefits and features.
scoundrel1728 is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

« PhotoCamel - Your Friendly Photography Forum > PhotoCamel Lounge > Photography Talk »


Share this topic:

Thread Tools
Display Modes