Can't say I do. Look at the forehead for instance. Also look at the aliasing in the 500D image in the red textile in the upper left part of the crop. The GF1 image seems to have higher micro contrast but the 500D seems to have a higher resolving power.
Of course with differences like this, the difference could be because of lenses and/or RAW development.
Bigger question is outside of 100% crops on an internet camera forum does the difference between two no longer produced camera models like the GF1 and 500D really going to make a difference ?
Honestly, I do not understand the antagonism towards MFT on this forum. The NEX system may offer marginally better IQ due to its slightly larger sensor, but it comes with compromises of its own. Given the comparative sensor sizes, I am not sure how one can argue with any credibility that MFT's theoretical advantage over P&S is smaller than APS-C's over MFT.
Well the cropped FoV differences and differences in real world DoF usage are the biggest things. As someone who wants to shoot FF at some point going to MFT is going backwards for me. I won't hate on the system though, its good to have choices!
Also I find the NEX system is nicely balanced between giving you a smaller size body without the negatives of an even smaller sensor. It seems like the two opposing forces in this argument want something tiny or something large with the best IQ. The NEX is seemingly right in the middle and it fits for me. It all comes down to what we need in a camera and what we're willing to give up so we can reap the benefits of said camera. We all have different answers to this question.
bluetsunami wrote:
Well the cropped FoV differences and differences in real world DoF usage are the biggest things. As someone who wants to shoot FF at some point going to MFT is going backwards for me. I won't hate on the system though, its good to have choices!
Also I find the NEX system is nicely balanced between giving you a smaller size body without the negatives of an even smaller sensor. It seems like the two opposing forces in this argument want something tiny or something large with the best IQ. The NEX is seemingly right in the middle and it fits for me. It all comes down to what we need in a camera and what we're willing to give up so we can reap the benefits of said camera. We all have different answers to this question....Show more →
Exactly. We all have a sliding scale between quality and size.
bluetsunami wrote:
Also I find the NEX system is nicely balanced between giving you a smaller size body without the negatives of an even smaller sensor. It seems like the two opposing forces in this argument want something tiny or something large with the best IQ. The NEX is seemingly right in the middle and it fits for me. It all comes down to what we need in a camera and what we're willing to give up so we can reap the benefits of said camera. We all have different answers to this question.
+1, though i don't find the NEX lenses to be near as compelling as the µ4/3 system lenses. on the other hand i don't really like autofocus so it's merely an academic point for me.
itai195 wrote:
Honestly, I do not understand the antagonism towards MFT on this forum. The NEX system may offer marginally better IQ due to its slightly larger sensor, but it comes with compromises of its own. Given the comparative sensor sizes, I am not sure how one can argue with any credibility that MFT's theoretical advantage over P&S is smaller than APS-C's over MFT.
That's because you haven't looked into it enough.
Anything below 35mm FF is lame, and even that is rubbish compared to 6x7 which is nothing next to 4x5 which again is for, as Schwarzenegger, put it, "girlie men" who don't have what it takes to shoot 8x10
As others have put it, it's a sliding scale. And to give a sense of proportions:
denoir wrote:
That's because you haven't looked into it enough.
Anything below 35mm FF is lame, and even that is rubbish compared to 6x7 which is nothing next to 4x5 which again is for, as Schwarzenegger, put it, "girlie men" who don't have what it takes to shoot 8x10
As others have put it, it's a sliding scale. And to give a sense of proportions:
denoir wrote:
As others have put it, it's a sliding scale.
Yes, and there are tradeoffs at each level. But I think that image drives home the point that the sensor size difference between APS-C and MFT is much less significant than that between MFT and P&S. The NEX system will certainly always have some IQ advantage relative to MFT, and the question each photographer has to answer is whether that IQ advantage is significant enough to offset the other potential tradeoffs in each camera system.
Sure. In fact looking at the comparison makes me think that perhaps the most important difference is something that has not been mentioned here - 3:2 vs 4:3 ratio. That is bound to have more of an impact on your images than the difference in sensor size.
denoir wrote:
No, those are simply the relative sensor/film sizes. They don't depend on the medium (i.e. output size).
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to directly reply to your thread in that manor. I simply meant that the effective differences between the format sizes depends on your print size. ie. if you're making a 1"x2" print, the larger format won't have nearly the advantage that it would if you were printing 20"x30". So, when choosing a camera, print size should come into consideration.
douglasf13 wrote:
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to directly reply to your thread in that manor. I simply meant that the effective differences between the format sizes depends on your print size. ie. if you're making a 1"x2" print, the larger format won't have nearly the advantage that it would if you were printing 20"x30". So, when choosing a camera, print size should come into consideration.
Also, beyond print size and other variables such as ISO, subject matter makes a huge difference when comparing the relative quality attributes of various formats - particularly when comparing say tiny point and shoot sensors to anything larger. Shoot something at a distance which contains intricate detail - foliage and tree branches - and any PS sensor will crumble compared to M43 and larger. Point being, close, macro shot comparisons made in a studio situation are meaningless comparisons for what most folks will be using these various systems for.
denoir wrote:
Sure. In fact looking at the comparison makes me think that perhaps the most important difference is something that has not been mentioned here - 3:2 vs 4:3 ratio. That is bound to have more of an impact on your images than the difference in sensor size.
yup. shooting at portrait orientation i often end up cropping my aps-c images to just about 4/3 size. shooting landscapes (actual landscapes, not just landscape orientation) i often crop to the golden ratio making 4/3 images even smaller...
douglasf13 wrote:
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to directly reply to your thread in that manor. I simply meant that the effective differences between the format sizes depends on your print size. ie. if you're making a 1"x2" print, the larger format won't have nearly the advantage that it would if you were printing 20"x30". So, when choosing a camera, print size should come into consideration.
Well, yes and no. In practice format is usually correlated to output size, but it doesn't have to be. Take for instance the guy who built a 8x10 digital back. It's 10 megapixels, so it's not good for much more than web sized images. It does however produce images with an 8x10 look. This means:
1) Different angle of view for lenses
2) Different DOF for equivalent faming
3) Different diffraction limits
4) Different lens performance
I'll elaborate on the last point. Suppose we compare a 10 megapixel 8x10 with a 10 megapixel 1/2.5".
A 1/2.5" is 5.75mm x 4.29mm. This means that the image size will be approximately 3750x2800 pixels. An 8x10 is 254mm x 203mm and the image size would be around 3620 x 2900 pixels.
Any old lens will produce MTF in the 90-100% range at 7 lp/mm while the record holder for highest resolving production lens, the Zeiss 25 Biogon can do 10% MTF at 400 lp/mm. Most lenses don't resolve beyond 100-150 lp/mm - i.e the MTF is near zero.
So even if both have 10 megapixels the quality of those pixels will be vastly different. And you'll get a completely different look from the cameras.
The maximum output resolution will dictate how large you can print, but it's not the only parameter and even if you have the nominal resolution to print big, it is no guarantee that it will actually look good.
